DE BORJA v. VDA.

DE BORJA
G.R. No. L-28040, G.R. No. L-28568, G.R. No. L-28611; August 18, 1972; Reyes, J.B.L.
FACTS:
Francisco de Borja filed a petition for the probate of the will (Special Proceeding 1) of
his deceased wife Josefa Tangco with the CFI of Rizal. He was appointed executor
and administrator while their son Jose de Borja was subsequently appointed as coadministrator. When Francisco died, Jose became the sole administrator of the estate
of his mother Josefa.
Before he died, Francisco married his second wife Tasiana Ongsingco. When
Francisco died, Tasiana instituted testate proceedings (Special Proceeding 2) with the
CFI of Nueva Ecija and was appointed as special administratix of the estate of
Francisco.
The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana has been
plagued with several court suits and counter-suits; some 18 cases remain pending
determination in the courts. The testate estate of Josefa alone has been unsettled for
more than 25 years.
Thus, to put an end to all these litigations, a compromise agreement was entered
into by and between Jose and Tasiana wherein the parties agreed to sell Hacienda
Jalajala Problacion, which is presently under the administration in the Testate Estate
of Josefa, the proceeds of which will be the full and complete payment and
settlement of Tasianas hereditary share in the estate of Franscisco.
Jose submitted for Court approval the agreement to the CFI of Rizal for Special
Proceeding 1 and to the CFI of Nueva Ecija for Special Proceeding 2. Tasiana opposed
in both instances.
o CFI Rizal approved Taciana appealed subject of G.R. No. L-28040. (Case 1)
o CFI Nueva Ecija void & unenforeable Jose appealed subject of G.R. No. L28568. (Case 2)
Tasiana assailed the validity of the compromise agreement, arguing that heirs
cannot enter into such agreement before probating the will of Francisco;
o Guevarra v. Guevarra: The presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and
that the settlement and distribution of an estate on the basis of intestacy when
the decedent left a will, is against the law and policy.
o ROC Rule 74.1 does not allow the extrajudicial settlement of a decedents estate
by agreement between the heirs upon the absence of a will left by the decedent.
In claiming its validity, Jose argued that at the time the agreement was entered into,
on 12 October 1963, the governing provisions was Rule 74.1 of the ROC of 1940,
which allowed the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased person
regardless of whether he left a will or not.
Case No. L-28611 (Case 3) is an appeal by Jose from the decision of the CFI of Rizal
declaring the Hacienda Jalajala Problacion as the separate and exclusive property of
the Francisco and not a conjugal asset of the community with Josefa, and that said
hacienda pertains exclusively to his estate, which is under administration in Special
Proceeding 2 of the CFI of Nueva Ecija.
ISSUES/HELD:
WON the compromise agreement is valid YES
WON CFI of Rizal had jurisdiction to approve the compromise agreement YES
WON Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) should be declared as conjugal
property of Francisco and Josefa - YES

RATIO:
The compromise agreement is valid.
1. The doctrine of Guevarra v. Guevarra is inapplicable as there was here no attempt to
settle or distribute the estate of Francisco among the heirs thereto before the
probate of his will.
o The clear object of the contract (see Par. 2 of agreement) was merely the
Tasianas conveyance of any & all her individual share & interest, actual/eventual,
in the estate of Francisco & Josefa.
o There is no stipulation as to any other claimant, creditor or legatee. And as a
hereditary share in a decedent's estate is transmitted or vested immediately
from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest (NCC
777), there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity)
disposing of her/his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the
actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of
the estate.
o Tasiana was Franciscos compulsory heir and her successional interest existed
independent of Franciscos last will and testament and would exist even if such
will were not probated at all.
2. The agreement does not compromise the validity of Franciscos 2nd marriage.
o Tasiana argues that the agreement is void because it amounts to a compromise
as to her status and marriage with Francisco. But the Court did not appreciate
this, saying that the marriage has been impliedly recognized by Jose in signing
the agreement which described Tasiana as the surviving spouse of Francisco.
This serves as recognition of her civil status.
CFI of Rizal had jurisdiction to approve the compromise agreement between
Jose and Tasiana.
Tasiana argued that CFI of Rizal had no jurisdiction to approve the agreement
because Tasiana was not an heir in the estate of Josefa pending settlement in the
Rizal Court, but she was an heir of Francisco, whose estate was the object of Special
Proceeding B in the CFI of Nueva Ecija.
The Court ruled that this circumstance is irrelevant, since what was sold by Tasiana
was only her eventual share in the estate of Francisco, not the estate itself; and as
already shown, that eventual share she owned from the time of Franciscos death
and the CFI of Nueva Ecija could not bar her selling it. Such alienation is expressly
recognized and provided for by NCC 1088:
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger
before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the
rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale,
provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they
were notified in writing of the sale of the vendor.
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) should be declared as conjugal property of
Francisco and Josefa.
NCC 160 states that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband
or to the wife. The legal presumption in favor of the conjugal character of the
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) now in dispute has not been rebutted - but actually
confirmed by proof.
o Witness Gregorios (1st cousin of Francisco) testimony that Francisco derived his
contribution in the purchase of the Hacienda was acquired when he was still a

bachelor and which he derived from his business transactions when he was still a
bachelor was considered hearsay and inadmissible, since Gregorio merely
repeated what Marcelo (Franciscos father) had told him.
The inventories show that Francisco owned 2 real properties the bigger one
being the Hacienda de Jalajala. But Franciscos sworn statement attesting to his
personal and exclusive ownership does not clearly demonstrate that it refers
precisely to the Hacienda in question. The statement was also plainly selfserving, and thus not admissible absent a cross examination.
The inventories made by Francisco as executor of Josefas estate and the
inventories made by Tasiana as executor of Franciscos estate admitted the
conjugal partnership between Francisco and Josefa over Hacienda de Jalajala.

Case 1 AFFIRMED; Case 2 REVERSED; Case 3 REVERSED.