MARINA DIZON-RIVERA, executrix-appellee, vs. ESTELA DIZON, TOMAS V. DIZON, BERNARDITA DIZON, JOSEFINA DIZON, ANGELINA DIZON and LILIA DIZON, oppositors-appellants. 33 SCRA 554 (19!" 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. Of the two projects of partition submitted by the contending parties, that project which will give the greatest effect to the testamentary disposition should be adopted. Thus, where the testatrix enumerated the specific properties to be given to each compulsory heir and the testatrix repeatedly used the words "I beueath" was interpreted to mean a partition of the estate by an act mortis causa, causa, rather than as an attempt on her part to give such properties as devises to the designated beneficiaries. !ccordingly, the specific specific properties assigned to each compulsory heir were deemed to be in full or partial payment of legitime, rather than a distribution in the nature of devises. The tenor of the decision notwithstanding, it is important to note the provision of !rticle # which reads$ "%egitime is that part of the testator&s property which he canno cannott dispose dispose of because because the law has has reserved reserved it for certain certain heirs heirs who are, are, therefore, therefore, called called compulso compulsory ry heirs." heirs." !rticle !rticle # is couched couched upon upon a negative prohibition "cannot dispose of". In the will under consideration, the testatrix disposed of practically her entire estate by designating a beneficiary for each property. 'ecessarily, the testamentary dispositions included that portion of the estate called "legitime." It is thus imperative to reconcile the tenor of !rticle ()) *which is the basis of the following decision+ with !rticle #. granddaughter. /arina FACTS# In (#(, !gripina alde *widow+ died and was survived by seven compulsory heirs$ # legitimate children and ( legitimate granddaughter. is the appellee while the others were the appellants (. alde alde left a w ill executed in 0ebruary 0ebruary (#) and written in 1ampango. The beneficiaries were the 2 compulsory heirs and six grandchildren grandchildren 3. In her will, alde alde distributed and disposed of her properties *assessed *assessed at 1(. 1(. million+ which which included real and personal properties properties and shares of stoc4s at 1ampanga 5ugar 6entral 7evt 6o 8. 7uring 7uring the probate probate proceedin proceedings, gs, /arina /arina *appellee+ *appellee+ was name name the executo executorr of the deceased9 deceased9ss estate :. In her will, alde alde commande commandedd that her property property be divided in accordance accordance with with her testamentary testamentary dispositio dispositionn where she devised devised and beueathed beueathed specific real properties comprising almost her entire estate among her heirs. ;ased on the partition, /arina and Tomas were to receive more than the other heirs <. 5ubseuen 5ubseuently tly,, /arina /arina filed her her project project of partition partition adjudic adjudicating ating the the estate estate as follows$ follows$ a. the legitime legitime computed computed for each each compulsory compulsory heir was 1(3,3< 1(3,3<:.#, :.#, which which was comprised comprised of cash cash and=or properti properties es specifically specifically given to them based on the will b. /arina /arina and Tomas Tomas were adjudicat adjudicated ed the properties properties that that they received received in the will less the cash=properti cash=properties es to complete complete their respective respective legitime #. The other heirs opposed the partition and and proposed a counter-partition on the estate estate where /arina /arina and Tomas were to receive considerably less 2. The lower court court approved approved the executor9s executor9s project project of partition partition citing that that !rt )# and )2 '66 specifica specifically lly provide that that when the legitime legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be completed. The court cited that if the proposition of the oppositors was upheld, it will substantially result in a distribution of intestacy which is a violation of !rt 2( '66
ISS$E# >O' the last will of the deceased is to be considered controlling in this case different interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation interpretation by %ELD# ?es. !rt 2 and 2( '66 provide that "If a testamentary disposition admits of different which the disposi disposition tion is to be operat operative ive shall shall be preferred" preferred" and "The "The words words of a will are are to receive receive an interpret interpretation ation which which will give to every every expressi expression on some some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative@ and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy." In illanueva v. Auico, the 56 held that " &' )n&n&)*n+ and )+'+ * &' &+&a&*, 'n /0a0 2++d )n ')+ )00, /*n+&)&& &' )2d 0a * )n&&a&)*n, and a00 +&)*n+ a)+d a& &' &)a0, 0a&)6 &* )&+ 2/&)*n and 0)007n&, 7+& 8 +&&0d )n a//*dan/ &')&', *00*)n &' 0a)n and 0)&a0 7an)n * &' &+&a&*:+ *d+, n0++ )& /0a0 aa+ &'a& ')+ )n&n&)*n a+ *&')+.; The testator&s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the matter of testaments, and to paraphrase an early decision of the 5upreme 6ourt of 5pain, when expressed clearly and precisely in his last will, amount to the only law whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully obeyed and complied with by his executors, heirs and devisees and legatees, and neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute their own criterion for the testator&s will. Thus, the oppositors9 proposition for partition cannot be given effect. O' 1!BTITIO'$ T' &+&a7n&a d)+*+)&)*n * &' d/dn& a+ )n &' na& * a a&)&)*n. In her will, the decedent noted that after commanding that upon her death all her obligations as well as the expenses of her last illness and funeral and the expenses for the probate of her last will and for the administration of her property in accordance with law, be paid, +' 2++0 *6)dd &'a& ;)& )+ 7 )+' and I /*77and &'a& 7 *& 8 d)6)dd; )n a//*dan/ )&' &' d)+*+)&)*n+ )77d)a&0 &'a& *00*)n, '8 +' +/))d a/' a0 *& )n ' +&a& and d+)na&d &' a&)/0a ') a7*n ' +6n /*70+* ')+ and +6n *&' and/')0dn &* '*7 +' 8a&'d &' +a7. T')+ a+ a 6a0)d a&)&)*n * ' +&a&, a+ /*n&70a&d and a&'*)<d )n &' )+& aaa' * A& 1!=! NCC, *6)d)n &'a& ;S'*0d a +*n 7a> a
a&)&)*n * ')+ +&a& 8 an a/& inter vivos * 8 )00, +/' a&)&)*n +'a00 8 +/&d, )n+*a a+ )& d*+ n*& ?d)/ &' 0)&)7 * &' /*70+* ')+.; 6!;$ This was properly complied with in the executor9s project of partition as the oppositors were adjudicated the properties respectively distributed and assigned to them by the decedent in her will and the differential to complete their legitimes were ta4en from the cash and=or properties of /arina and Tomas, who were obviously favored by the decedent in her will. !side from the provisions of !rt )# and )2, other codal provisions support the executrix-appellee&s project of partition as approved by the lower court rather than the counter-project of partition proposed by oppositors-appellants whereby they would reduce the testamentary disposition or partition made by the testatrix to one-half and limit the same, which they would consider as mere devises and 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&s will, contrary to !rt 2( '66. C00C6T O0 1!BTITIO'$ &! partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him", from the death of her ancestors, subject to rights and obligations of the latter, and, she cannot be deprived of her rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law 7CI5C5$ The adjudication and assignments in the testatrix&s will of specific properties to specific heirs cannot be considered all devises, for it clearly appears from the whole context of the will and the dispositions by the testatrix of her whole estate *save for some small properties of little value already noted at the beginning of this opinion+ that her clear intention was to partition her whole estate through her will. 0urthermore, the testatrix&s intent that her testamentary dispositions were by way of adjudications to the beneficiaries as heirs and not as mere devisees, and that said dispositions were therefore on account of the respective legitimes of the compulsory heirs is expressly borne out in the fourth paragraph of her will, immediately following her testamentary adjudications in the third paragraph in this wise$ "0ODBTE$ I li4ewise command that in case any of those I named as my heirs in this testament any of them shall die before I do, his forced heirs under the law enforced at the time of my death shall inherit the properties I beueath to said deceased." 6O%%!TIO'$ 6ollation is not applicable in this case because here, distribution and partition of the entire estate was made by the testatrix, without her having made any previous donations during her lifetime which would reuire collation to determine the legitime of each heir nor having left merely some properties by will which would call for the application of !rt ()#( to ()#8 of the 6ivil 6ode on collation. 6!' TEC O11O5ITOB5 7C/!'7 /OBC TE!' TECIB %CFITI/CG 'o. Their right was merely to demand completion of their legitime under !rticle )# of the 6ivil 6ode and this has been complied with in the approved project of partition, and they can no longer demand a further share from the remaining portion of the estate, as beueathed and partitioned by the testatrix principally to the executrix-appellee.
