De Borja vs. Vda.

de Borja 46 SCRA 577

FACTS
This case is compilation of three cases including:
CASE A: G.R. No. L-28040 appeal by Tasiana Vda. de de Borja from approval of compromise agreement by CFI
Rizal
CASE B: G.R. No L-28568 appeal Jose de Borja from the disapproval of compromise agreement by CFI Nueva
Ecija
CASE C: G.R. No. L-28611 appeal by Jose de Borja from the decision of CFI Rizal that the main object of the
compromise agreement is a separate and exclusive property of Francisco de Borja and not a conjugal asset

Family Tree


Francisco de Borja filed a petition for the probate of the will of her wife Josefa Tangco upon her death (CFI
Rizal). He was appointed executor and administrator while Jose de Borja (their son) was appointed co-administrator.
When Francisco died, Jose became sole administrator
Francisco had taken a 2nd wife Tasiana before he died and she instituted testate proceedings with the CFI of
Nueva Ecija upon his death and was appointed special administatrix.
The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has been plagued with several court
suits and counter-suits. Thus, Jose and Tasiana entered into a compromise agreement to put an end to all of the
pending litigations.
However, Tasiana argues that compromise agreement was not valid, because the heirs cannot enter into such
kind of agreement without first probating the will of Francisco, and at the time the agreement was made, the will was
still being probated with the CFI of Nueva Ecija.

ISSUE
W/N the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been probated.

RULING
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VALID
Doctrine in Guevara vs. Guevara: 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 public
policy. NOT APPLICABLE
o There was here no attempt to settle or distribute the estate of Francisco de Borja among the heirs
thereto before the probate of his will.
o The clear object of the contract was merely the conveyance by Tasiana Ongsingco of any and all her
individual share and interest, actual or eventual in the estate of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco.
Francisco de Borja
#1 Josefa Tangco
Jose de Borja Cayetano de Borja Matilde de Borja Crisanto de Borja
#2 Tasiana Vda. de de Borja
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 (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777)
3
there is no legal
bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of her or 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
Francisco de Borja's last will and testament and would exist even if such will were not probated at all.
o Case A: affirmed
Case B: reversed
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) should be declared property of the conjugal partnership of Francisco de Borja
and Josefa Tangco
o Art. 160. 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.
o Reasons:
Witnesss testimony considered hearsay and inadmissible
Franciscos testimony does not refer precisely to the Hacienda in question
o 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 CASE C: reversed