Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon

Marina Dizon-Rivera v Dizon, et al.
Marina 576k
GR L-24561 | June 30, 1970 | Teehankee Pablo 34k
8 grandchildren 36k
FACTS
Agripina died and she left a will. Lower Court approved Marina’s project of partition
Agripina Valdez died and was survived by 7 compulsory heirs This is practical and valid solution
(6 legitimate children & 1 legitimate grandchild as heir of a Basis: Arts. 906 and 907 of NCC provides that when the
pre-deceased legitimate child). She left a will written in legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be
Pampango dialect. The real and personal properties of the competed and satisfied.
testatrix had a total appraised value of P1,811,695.00
(formerly P1,801,960.00). Although both projects of partition tried to adhere to this, the
Counter-project of partition will substantially result in a
Testate proceedings: will admitted to probate. distribution intestacy, which is in controversion of Art.
Testate proceedings were in due course commenced and the 791 adding that “the testratix has chosen to favor certain
last will and testament was allowed and admitted to probate. heirs in her will for reasons of her own, cannot be doubted”.
One of the compulsory heirs, Marina Dizon-Rivera was
appointed executrix of the testatrix' estate. ISSUE
Whether the testamentary dispositions in the will are in the
The legitime of each of the 7 compulsory heirs amounted nature of devises imputable to the free portion of the estate
to P129,362.11. (1/7 of the half of the estate reserved for the and therefore subject to reduction?
legitime of legitimate children and descendants).
HELD
1. Agripina’s will The testamentary disposition made by Agripina was in
In her will, the testatrix "commanded that her property be the nature of partition of her estate by will.
divided" in accordance with her testamentary
disposition, whereby she devised and bequeathed specific Articles 788 and 791
real properties comprising practically the entire bulk of her "If a testamentary disposition admits of different
estate among her 6 children and 8 grandchildren as follows: interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by
Estela 98k which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred"
Angelina 106k and "The words of a will are to receive an interpretation
Bernardita 51k which will give to every expression some effect, rather
Josefina 52k than one which will render any of the expressions
Tomas 131k inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that
Lilia 72k is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy."
Marina 1.1M
Pablo 69k Testator’s wish = fixed law
8 grandchildren 72k The testator's wishes and intention constitute the first and
principal law in the matter of testaments. When expressed
Take note: Marina and Tomas were given more than their clearly and precisely in his last will amount to the only law
respective legitimes, while the rest received less than their whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully obeyed and
respective legitimes. complied with by his executors, heirs and devisees and
legatees, and neither these interested parties nor the courts
2. Marina’s project of partition may substitute their own criterion for the testator's will.
Marina submitted a project of partition, adjudicating the
properties given them in the will, plus cash and/or properties Agripina’s will "it is my wish and I command that my
to complete the respective legitimes to P129,254.96 of those property be divided” in accordance with the disposition
given less while Tomas and Marina must pay in cash or immediately thereafter following.
property an amount necessary to complete the prejudiced
legitimes. This was a valid partition of her estate subject only to the
legitimes
3. Other heirs COUNTER-PROJECT OF PARTITION This is contemplated and authorized par. 1 of Art. 1080:
The oppositors, who were the other 6 compulsory heirs "(S)hould a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter
(including Tomas), submitted their counter-project of vivos or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it
partition where they proposed the reduction of all does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs."
testamentary dispositions proportionately to the value of 1⁄2
of the entire estate corresponding to the free portion, and the Safeguard to the right of such compulsory heirs:
other half to be divided among the 7 compulsory heirs as ART. 906. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by
constituting their legitimes. This is their proposal: any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand
that the same be fully satisfied.
First ½= divided according to 1/7 share as legitime ART. 907. Testamentary dispositions that impair or diminish
Second ½ the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be reduced on
Estela 49k petition of the same, insofar as they may be inofficious or
Angelina 53k excessive.
Bernardita 26k
Josefina 26k The counter-project of partition amounts to distrubtion
Tomas 65k by intestacy! It nullifies the will, WHICH IS WRONG!
Lilia 36k The counter-project of partition would reduce the
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

testamentary partition made by Agripina to one-half and limit
the same, which they would consider as mere devises or
legacies, to one-half of the estate as the disposable free
portion, and apply the other half of the estate to payment of
the legitimes of the seven compulsory heirs. Oppositors'
proposal would amount substantially to a distribution by
intestacy and pro tanto nullify the testatrix' will, contrary to
Art. 791 and Art. 1091: "(A) partition legally made confers
upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property
adjudicated to him.
Oppositors argument: “I bequeath”= devises

The testamentary dispositions in their favor are in the nature
of devises of real property, citing the testatrix' repeated use of
the words "I bequeath" in her assignment or distribution of
her real properties to the respective heirs.
SC: They are NOT devises.

This cannot be considered devises: for it clearly appear from
the whole context of the will and the disposition by the
testatrix of her whole estate that her clear intention was to
partition her whole estate through her will.
● "I bequeath" acquire no legal significance,
● Agripina’s intent were by way of adjudications to the
beneficiaries as heirs and not as mere devisees.
Dispositions should not be taken only from the free

portion.
The testamentary dispositions of the testatrix, being
dispositions in favor of compulsory heirs, do not have to be
taken only from the free portion of the estate, as contended,
for the par. 2 of Art. 842 precisely provides that "(O)ne who
has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does
not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the
legitime of said heirs."
Annex:
Oppositors argue that: the purchasing value of the Philippine
peso has greatly declined since the testatrix' death in January,
1961
SC: no legal basis or justification for overturning the wishes

and intent of the testatrix
Oppositors right was merely to demand completion of

their legitime under Article 906.
Neither may the appellants legally insist on their legitime
being completed with real properties of the estate instead of
being paid in cash, per the approved project of partition.
The transmission of rights to the succession are

transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent
(Article 777, Civil Code) and accordingly, the value
thereof must be reckoned as of then, as otherwise, estates
would never be settled if there were to be a revaluation
with every subsequent fluctuation in the values of the
currency and properties of the estate.
That her co-oppositors would receive their cash differentials

only now when the value of the currency has declined further,
whereas they could have received them earlier, like
Bernardita, at the time of approval of the project of partition
and when the peso's purchasing value was higher, is due to
their own decision of pursuing the present appeal.
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marina Dizon-Rivera v Dizon, et al.

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

Oppositors argument: “I bequeath”= devises

SC: They are NOT devises.

Dispositions should not be taken only from the free

SC: no legal basis or justification for overturning the wishes

Oppositors right was merely to demand completion of

The transmission of rights to the succession are

That her co-oppositors would receive their cash differentials

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

You might also like