DE BORJA V. DE BORJA [G.R. No.

L-28611 August 18, 1972]

FACTS:
Administrator Jose De Borja appealed on the decision of the CFI of Rizal, declaring the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion
as the separate and exclusive property of late Francisco de Borja and not a conjugal asset of the community with
his first wife, Josefa Tangco, and that the said hacienda pertains exclusively to his testate estate, under
administrator in Special Proceeding No. 832 of the CFI of Nueva Ecija.
Upon the death of his wife Josefa Tangco, Francisco De Borja filed a petition for the probate of her will in CFI of
Rizal. It was probated. In 1946, Francisco was appointed executor and administrator. In 1952, their son Jose De
Borja was appointed co-administrator. While a widower, Francisco took a second wife Tasiana Ongsingco. When
Francisco died, Jose became sole administrator of testate estate of his mother Josefa tangco. Tasiana instituted
testate proceedings in CFI of Nueva Ecija and was appointed special administratrix. Validity of her marriage to
Francisco was questioned.
A compromise agreement was made by and between the heir and son Jose De Borja as administratoor of the
testate estate of Josefa Tangco, and the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco in his 2nd marriage, Tasiana
Ongsingco.
Jose submitted for Court approval the agreement to Cfi of Rizal and to CFI of Nueva Ecija. Tasiana opposed in both
instances. Rizal court approved the agreement but Nueva Ecija court declared it void and unenforceable.
Tasiana appealed the Rizal Court’s order of approval, while Jose appealed The Nueva Ecija Court’s order of
disapproval.
The genuineness and due execution of the compromised agreement is not disputed, but its validity is attacked by
Tasiana on the ground that: (1) the heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the will
of Francisco de Borja; (2) that the same involves a compromise on the validity of the marriage between Francisco
de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco; and (3) that even if it were valid, it has ceased to have force and effect.

In the case G.R. No. L-28611, the issue is whether the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion), concededly acquired by
Francisco de Borja during his marriage to his first wife, Josefa Tangco, is the husband's private property (as
contended by his second spouse, Tasiana Ongsingco), or whether it forms part of the conjugal (ganancial)
partnership with Josefa Tangco. CFI of Rizal declared that there was adequate evidence to overcome the
presumption in favor of its conjugal character established by Article 160 of the Civil Code. CFI ruled that.

ISSUE: Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been probated.

RULING:
YES, the compromise agreement is valid.
The agreement stipulated that Tasiana will receive P800,000 as full payment for her hereditary share in the estate
of Francisco and Josefa.
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. 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.
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) 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.
[SC ruled that: We find the conclusions of the lower court to be untenable. In the first place, witness Gregorio de
Borja's testimony as to the source of the money paid by Francisco for his share was plain hearsay, hence
inadmissible and of no probative value, since he was merely repeating what Marcelo de Borja had told him
(Gregorio). There is no way of ascertaining the truth of the statement, since both Marcelo and Francisco de Borja
were already dead when Gregorio testified. In addition, the statement itself is improbable, since there was no need
or occasion for Marcelo de Borja to explain to Gregorio how and when Francisco de Borja had earned the
P17,000.00 entrusted to Marcelo. A ring of artificiality is clearly discernible in this portion of Gregorio's testimony.
As to Francisco de Borja's affidavit, Exhibit "F", the quoted portion thereof (ante, page 14) does not clearly
demonstrate that the "mi terreno personal y exclusivo (Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal) " refers precisely to the
Hacienda in question. The inventories (Exhibits 3 and 4) disclose that there were two real properties in Jalajala
owned by Francisco de Borja, one of 72.038 sq. m., assessed at P44,600, and a much bigger one of 1,357.260.70 sq.
m., which is evidently the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion). To which of these lands did the affidavit of Francisco de
Borja (Exhibit "F") refer to? In addition, Francisco's characterization of the land as "mi terreno personal y exclusivo"
is plainly self-serving, and not admissible in the absence of cross examination.
It may be true that the inventories relied upon by defendant-appellant (Exhibits "2", "3", "4" and "7") are not
conclusive on the conjugal character of the property in question; but as already noted, they are clear admissions
against the pecuniary interest of the declarants, Francisco de Borja and his executor-widow, Tasiana Ongsingco,
and as such of much greater probative weight than the self-serving statement of Francisco (Exhibit "F"). Plainly, 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. Hence, the appealed order should be reversed and the Hacienda de
Jalajala (Poblacion) declared property of the conjugal partnership of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco.
No error having been assigned against the ruling of the lower court that claims for damages should be ventilated in
the corresponding special proceedings for the settlement of the estates of the deceased, the same requires no pro
announcement from this Court.]

Facts: Francisco De Borja, upon the death of his wife, filed a petition for the probate of her will and after probate, was appointed executor
and administrator. Jose De Borja, thereon, was appointed co-administrator of the testate estate of his mother while the widower allegedly
took into himself a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon Francisco’s death, Tasiana instituted testate proceedings and was appointed
special administrator. The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana has been plagued with several court suits and
in order to put an end to all these litigations a compromise agreement was entered by and between the heirs of Francisco by the first
marriage and the heirs of Francisco by the second marriage.

Issue: The doctrine in Guevarra vs Guevarra which held that he 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 is not applicable when
the clear object of settlement was merely the conveyance by the heir of any and all their individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in
the estate of the decedent and not the distribution of the said estate.

As a hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or immediately from the moment of death, there is no legal bar to a successor
disposing his or her hereditary share immediately after such death, even after the actual extent of such share is not yet determined until the
subsequent liquidation of the estate. Of course, the effect of such alienation is deemed limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to vendor
heir.