Scribd
Upload
323 views1 page

Estate Dispute: Validity of Agreement

The heirs of Francisco de Borja's first wife, Josefa, and his second wife, Tasiana, had been engaged in protracted litigation over the estates. To resolve the disputes, Tasiana and Jose, the son and administrator of Josefa's estate, entered a compromise agreement where Jose would pay Tasiana P800,000 for her full share of both estates. When Jose submitted the agreement for court approval, Tasiana opposed it. The court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, as Tasiana was free to convey her individual share or interest in the estates, even before their final probate and distribution. The effect of the agreement was limited to Tasiana's actual adjudicated share.

Uploaded by

Renz Amon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
323 views1 page

Estate Dispute: Validity of Agreement

The heirs of Francisco de Borja's first wife, Josefa, and his second wife, Tasiana, had been engaged in protracted litigation over the estates. To resolve the disputes, Tasiana and Jose, the son and administrator of Josefa's estate, entered a compromise agreement where Jose would pay Tasiana P800,000 for her full share of both estates. When Jose submitted the agreement for court approval, Tasiana opposed it. The court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, as Tasiana was free to convey her individual share or interest in the estates, even before their final probate and distribution. The effect of the agreement was limited to Tasiana's actual adjudicated share.

Uploaded by

Renz Amon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DE BORJA v. VDA.

DE BORJA
46 SCRA 577 (1972)

FACTS: Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa, filed for the probate of her will. When
the will was probated, Francisco was appointed as executor and administrator and herein appellee, Jose
de Borja, their son was appointed as coadministrator.Subsequently, Francisco took upon himself, a
secondwife, Tasiana Ongsingco (Vda. De Borja). Even before the estate of Josefa was settled, Francisco
died. Tasiana instituted testate proceedings wherein she was appointed special Administratrix. The
relationship between the children of the first marriage and the second wife, Tasiana had been plagued
with numeroussuits and counter-suits and in order to put an end to all theselitigation, a compromise
agreement was entered into betweenJose, in his personal capacity and as administrator of the Testate
Estate of Josefa, and by Tasiana, as the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco. Pursuant to the
compromise agreement, Jose agreed and obligated himself to pay Tasiana the amount of P 800,000.00
as ‘”full and complete payment and settlement of her hereditary share in the estate of the late Francisco
de Borja as well as the estateof Josefa, and to any properties bequeathed or devised in her favor by the
late Francisco de Borja by Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter Vivos or Mortis Causa or
purportedly conveyed to her for consideration or otherwise.” When Jose submitted the compromise
agreement for Court approval with the CFI of Rizal (probate of will of fi rst wife) and the CFI of Nueva
Ecija (probate of will of Francisco), Tasiana opposed in both instances. She claims among others, that
the heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement without fi rst probating the will of Francisco de Borja.

ISSUE: Whether the compromise agreement is valid?

HELD: In assailing the validity of the agreement, Tasiana relies on this Court’s decision in Guevara v.
Guevara wherein the Court held the view that presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and that
the settlement and distribution of an estateon the basis of intestacy when the decedent left a will, is
against the law and public policy. However, the doctrine in said case is not applicable to the case at bar.
There was here no attempt to settle or to distribute the estate of Francisco among the heirs thereto
before the probate of his will. The clear object of the contract was merely the conveyance by Tasiana of
any and all her individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in the estate of Francisco and Josefa.
Since a hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment
of the death of such predecessor in interest, there is no legal bar to a successor 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. Of course, the effect of such alienation is to be deemed
limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir.

You might also like