DIZON-RIVERA v.

DIZON
G.R. No. L-24561 June 30 1970 Ponente Author’s surname
petitioners Marina Dizon-Rivera
respondents Estella Dizon, Tomas Dizon, Bernardita Dizon, Josefina Dizon, Angelina Dizon, Lilia Dizon
summary Valdez died with 7 compulsory heirs. She left a will, which gave to each compulsory heir
specific properties of her estate, but leaving more for Marina and Tomas compared to the
others. Marina was named executor and she submitted a partition plan which will
distribute properties to the compulsory heirs in accordance with the will but would
deduct from Marina and Tomas’ properties any amount that would impair the legitimes
of the others. The others opposed this of course, but the Court granted the project of
partition. The intention of the testator, when it is clear, is the law that must be complied
with and if it does not impair the legitime then it should be followed. Here, there was no
need to challenge the distribution since the partition already gave for the method of how
the legitimes will be satisfied. Neither can there be collation in the case at hand since the
deceased did not donate any property inter vivos.

facts of the case

- In 1961, Agripina Valdez (widow) died and was died by 7 compulsory heirs: 6 legitimate children and
1 legitimate granddaughter. Marina is the one opposing the 6 compulsory heirs
- Valdez left a will executed in 1960 and written in Pampango. The beneficiaries were the 7 compulsory
heirs and six grandchildren. In her will, she distributed of her properties (valued at around P1.8M)
which included real and personal properties as well as shares of stock in Pampanga Sugar Central
Dev’t Co.
- During probate proceedings, Marina was named executor of the deceased’s estate
- In her will, Valdez commanded that her property be divided in accordance with her testamentary
dispositions such that specific real properties will be given to certain heirs. Based on the partition,
Marina and Tomas were to receive more than the others.
- Marina then filed her project of partition adjudicating the estate as follows:
o The legitime computed for each compulsory heir was P129k comprising cash and or properties
specifically given to them based on the will
o Marina and Tomas were adjudicated the properties received in the will less the cash/properties
to complete their respective legitimes.
o (interpretation) the will was followed, which gave Marina and Tomas more than the others. In
order to not violate the law on legitimes, the partition proposed that whatever the other
compulsory heirs were deprived of will be taken from Marina and Tomas’ properties.
- The other heirs opposed the partition and proposed a counter-partition where Marina and Tomas were
to receive considerably less
- Lower court approved Marina’s project of partition, citing Arts. 906 and 907. NCC specifically provide
that when the legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be completed. The court said that if the
oppositors were upheld, it will substantially result in a distribution of intestacy, in vilation of Article
791 NCC.

issue
W/N the last will of the deceased is to be considered controlling in this case. YES

Ratio
1
 - Articles 788 and 791 provide that “If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in
case of doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred and
“The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect,
rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting
a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy
- The testator’s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the matter of testaments.
When expressed clearly in the last will, the intentions amount to the only law whose mandate must
imperatively be faithfully obeyed and complied with.
- In this case, there was a valid PARTITION in accordance with Article 1080 which states that “Should a
person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos or by will, such partition shall be respected,
insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs
o As applied, the oppistors were adjudicated the properties respectively distributed and assigned
to them by the decedent in her will and the differential to complete their legitimes were taken
from the cash and properties of Marina and Tomas who were obviously favored by the
decedent in her will.
- A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated t
him,

Were they Devises? NO

- They can’t be considered as devises or legacies since by reading the will itself, the intention to
distribute the properties to satisfy their legitimes can be seen.
- In the fourth paragraph of the will “FOURTH: I likewise command that in case any of those I named as
my heirs in this testament shall die before I do, his forced heirs under the law enforced at the time of
my death shall inherit the properties I bequeath to said deceased”
-
Collation? NOPE
- Collation does not apply in this case since the distribution and partition was made by the testatrix
without her having made previous donations during her lifetime which would require collation to
determine the legitime of each heir nor having left merely some properties by will which would call for
the application of Articles 1061-63 of the Civil Code

Can the oppositors demand more? Nope

- Their right was confined to demanding completion of their legitime under Article 906 of the Civil Code
and this has been complied with in the approved project of partition