Legasto vs.

Versoza
54 Phil 766 (1930)
Digested by Jonah B. Bucoy

Facts:
Plaintiff Vivencio Legasto, the special administrator appointed by the Court of First
Instance of Laguna for the estate of Sabina Almadin, filed a complaint against the
defendants, Maria Verzosa and others. The complaint sought the delivery of certain
land parcels that Sabina Almadin had devised to her nieces, including the
defendants, through a will executed on May 13, 1925. The partition of the property
among the nieces was done by Sabina Almadin on August 8, 1925, through deeds
of assignment. However, Sabina Almadin's will was disallowed for not meeting the
essential requisites for validity. Legasto, as the special administrator, contended
that the partition made by Sabina Almadin was null and void due to the
disallowance of the will. The complaint sought the enforcement of the court's
judgment, which ordered the defendants to deliver the land parcels to the estate of
Sabina Almadin, excluding specific lots declared as the absolute property of Victoria
Verzosa, wife of Jose Carasco.
The defendants, including Maria Verzosa and others, were named in a complaint
filed by Vivencio Legasto, the special administrator for the estate of Sabina
Almadin. The complaint sought the delivery of certain land parcels that Sabina
Almadin had devised to her nieces, including the defendants, through a will
executed on May 13, 1925. The partition of the property among the nieces was
done by Sabina Almadin on August 8, 1925, through deeds of assignment. The
defendants, as the recipients of these land parcels, were in possession and
cultivation of the properties as exclusive owners. The defendants contested the
complaint and raised several contentions. Among these contentions were challenges
to the court's jurisdiction to order the delivery of the properties, disputes regarding
the interpretation of public instruments (Exhibits 2, 31, 42, and 73) as deeds of
gift, and arguments against the validity of the disallowance of Sabina Almadin's will.
They also contended that the conveyances made by Sabina Almadin of the land
parcels were valid and enforceable. Overall, the defendants sought to assert their
ownership and possession rights over the land parcels in question.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the partition made by Sabina Almadin among her nieces is valid
despite the disallowance of her will.
Ruling:
NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the partition made by Sabina Almadin among
her nieces is not valid despite the disallowance of her will. The Court invoked Article
1056 of the Civil Code, which provides that if a testator makes a partition of his
property by an act inter vivos or by will, such partition shall stand insofar as it does
not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs. The Court interpreted this provision to
require a valid will as a prerequisite for a testator to partition his estate inter vivos.
Since Sabina Almadin's will was disallowed, rendering it null and void, the Court
concluded that the partition made by her during her lifetime is likewise null and
void, as it lacked the necessary legal foundation. The ruling emphasizes the
importance of a valid will to legitimize any inter vivos partition and highlights the
interplay between testamentary and inter vivos dispositions in the context of estate
distribution.