G.R. No. L-44189 - Ygay y Mantua vs. Escareal

Paulino Diancin had two marriages.
His first wife was Margarita Doctura, and from this marriage he had five children: Lucas, Guadalupe, Bibiana, Fidel, and Tiburcio.
His second wife was Teopista Dolar, who is also designated as the judicial administratrix, and from this marriage he had four children: Olimpia, Rita, Josefina, and Rosario.

Among his children from the first marriage, Lucas died leaving three children: Natividad, Jose, and Demetria.
Guadalupe also is deceased, leaving three children: Natalia, Jesus, and Sulpicio Palma.
The remaining children from the first marriage (Bibiana, Fidel, and Tiburcio) are still living.
The children from the second marriage (Olimpia, Rita, Josefina, and Rosario) are involved in the contention over the project of partition.

Paulino Diancin acquired properties during both his first and second marriages.
In his will, he distributed all his properties among his widow, Teopista Dolar, and his heirs from both marriages.
The will provided for a legacy of ₱8,000 to be used for the altar of the church under construction in the Municipality of Dumangas.
The legacy was to be drawn from the fruits (i.e., income) of all properties before their partition among his heirs.

After the commencement of the testamentary proceedings, Teopista Dolar, as administratrix, first filed a project of partition, which was not approved due to opposition from certain heirs.
Subsequently, on November 30, 1936, she submitted another project of partition, which again was disapproved because the representative of the Church of Dumangas, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro, opposed it.
The court, in its resolution, ordered the administratrix to immediately take possession of all the properties of the estate and pay the legacy of ₱8,000 from the fruits of the properties.
The resolution further directed that after payment of the said legacy, a new project of partition be submitted for approval.

The dispute involves the administratrix, the heirs by both marriages, and the representative of the legacy (i.e., the Bishop of Jaro).
There is a noted lack of concurrence among the heirs regarding the project of partition, particularly between those from the first marriage and those from the second.
Creditors of the estate and the management of debts and administration expenses also figure into the dispute.

What is the proper method of partitioning the estate given the involvement of heirs from both marriages?
Should the properties acquired during the first and second marriages be liquidated and partitioned separately or collectively?

How should the legacy of ₱8,000 for the altar be funded without infringing the rights of the forced heirs?
Can the legacy be taken from the free third only, in adherence to the principles of forced heirship and without affecting the obligatory legitime?

What authority does the administratrix hold in the management and partition of the estate?
How should her actions align with the interests of all parties involved, including the creditors, the Church’s representative, and the various heirs?

Is it necessary for the partition to involve all interested parties (widow, heirs from both marriages, creditor/legacy representative, and creditors)?
What must be done if the parties do not reach a consensus on the partition and payment of the legacy?