G.R. No. L-24561 June 30, 1970
MARINA DIZON-RIVERA, executrix-appellee, vs. ESTELA DIZON, TOMAS V. DIZON, BERNARDITA DIZON, JOSEFINA DIZON, ANGELINA DIZON and LILIA DIZON, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Agripina J. Valdez died on January 28, 1961, survived by seven compulsory heirs: her six legitimate children (Estela, Tomas, Bernardita, Marina, Angelina, and Josefina) and a legitimate granddaughter, Lilia Dizon, the child of a predeceased son. She left a will dated February 2, 1960, written in Pampango, disposing of her properties, appraised at P1,801,960.00, among these compulsory heirs and seven other legitimate grandchildren. The will was admitted to probate, and Marina Dizon-Rivera was appointed executrix. The total estate value was P1,811,695.60, making the legitime of each of the seven compulsory heirs P129,362.11. The testatrix, in her will, commanded that her property be divided and devised specific real properties to named beneficiaries. The appraised values of the properties devised showed that Marina and Tomas received more than their legitimes, while Estela, Bernardita, Angelina, Josefina, and Lilia received less. The executrix filed a project of partition which adjudicated the properties given in the will to each heir, with those receiving less than their legitime to be completed with cash and/or properties from those who received more (Marina and Tomas), leaving the grandchildren’s devises untouched. The oppositors-appellants (all compulsory heirs except Marina) submitted a counter-project of partition proposing that all testamentary dispositions be proportionally reduced to one-half the estate’s value (the free portion), with the other half constituting the legitime to be divided equally among the seven compulsory heirs. The lower court approved the executrix’s project, ruling it gave effect to the testatrix’s wishes and that the oppositors’ proposal would result in a distribution akin to intestacy. The oppositors appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testamentary dispositions are devises imputable to the free portion and thus subject to reduction.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to their devise plus their legitime under Article 1063, or merely to completion of their legitime under Article 906 of the Civil Code.
3. Whether the appellants may be compelled to accept cash payment for their legitime instead of real properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders, upholding the executrix’s project of partition.
1. The testamentary dispositions were not mere devises of the free portion but constituted a partition by will. The testatrix’s clear command was to divide her property according to her specific dispositions. Interpreting the will as a partition gives effect to all its provisions and prevents intestacy, in accordance with Articles 788 and 791 of the Civil Code. The oppositors’ theory of proportional reduction would substantially alter the testatrix’s distributive plan and violate her expressed wishes.
2. The appellants are entitled only to the completion of their impaired legitimes under Article 906, not to their devise plus the full legitime under Article 1063. The will made a complete disposition of the estate. Where a compulsory heir is also a devisee, the value of the devise is imputed to their legitime. If the devise is less than the legitime, the heir is entitled to completion; if more, the excess is considered a disposition of the free portion. The testatrix’s intention to treat the dispositions as a partition supports this imputation.
3. The appellants may be compelled to accept cash to complete their legitimes. The lower court’s approval of cash payments from the executrix (the heir who received the largest devise) to the other heirs was a practical and valid solution to give effect to the will while complying with the law on legitimes. The law does not prohibit cash payment for this purpose, and it facilitates the distribution without disturbing the specific devises made by the testatrix.