Digested by ANDREA IVANNE P.
MABBORANG
G.R. No. L-28040 August 18, 1972
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO, JOSE DE BORJA, administrator-appellee;
JOSE DE BORJA, as administrator, CAYETANO DE BORJA, MATILDE DE BORJA
and CRISANTO DE BORJA (deceased) as Children of Josefa Tangco, appellees,
vs.
TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, Special Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Francisco
de Borja, appellant. .
G.R. No L-28568 August 18, 1972
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO DE BORJA, TASIANA O. VDA. DE
DE BORJA, special Administratrix appellee,
vs.
JOSE DE BORJA, oppositor-appellant.
G.R. No. L-28611 August 18, 1972
TASIANA 0. VDA. DE BORJA, as Administratrix of the Testate Estate of the late
Francisco de Borja, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE DE BORJA, as Administrator of the Testate Estate of the late Josefa
Tangco, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
This case is a compilation of 3 cases.
CASE A : G.R. No. L-28040
An appeal by Tasiana Vda. de de Borja from approval of compromise agreement by CFI Rizal
CASE B : G.R. No L-28568
An appeal Jose de Borja from the disapproval of compromise agreement by CFI Nueva Ecija
CASE C: G.R. No. L-28611
An 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.
Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa Tangco on 6 October 1940, filed a petition
for the probate of her will which was docketed as Special Proceeding No. R-7866 of the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated on 2 April 1941. In 1946, Francisco de
Borja was appointed executor and administrator: in 1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed
co-administrator. When Francisco died, on 14 April 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of
the testate estate of his mother, Josefa Tangco. While a widower Francisco de Borja allegedly
took unto himself a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon Francisco's death, Tasiana instituted
testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, where, in 1955, she was
appointed special administratrix. The validity of Tasiana's marriage to Francisco was questioned
in said proceeding.
The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has been
plagued with several court suits and counter-suits; including the three cases at bar, some eighteen
(18) cases remain pending determination in the courts. The testate estate of Josefa Tangco alone
has been unsettled for more than a quarter of a century. In order to put an end to all these
litigations, a compromise agreement was entered into on 12 October 1963, by and between Jose
de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco.
The Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva Ecija court declared it void
and unenforceable.
The genuineness and due execution of the compromised agreement of 12 October 1963 is not
disputed, but its validity is, nevertheless, attacked by Tasiana Ongsingco 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 assailing the validity of the agreement of 12 October 1963, Tasiana Ongsingco and the
Probate Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this Court's decision in Guevara vs. Guevara. 74 Phil. 479,
wherein the Court's majority held the view that 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 public policy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been
probated.
HELD:
YES, the compromise agreement is valid.
The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara, ante, is not applicable to the case at bar. This is apparent
from an examination of the terms of the agreement between Jose de Borja and Tasiana
Ongsingco. Paragraph 2 of said agreement specifically stipulates that the sum of P800,000
payable to Tasiana Ongsingco —
shall be considered as full — complete payment — settlement of her hereditary
share in the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate of Josefa
Tangco, ... 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.
This provision evidences beyond doubt that the ruling in the Guevara case is not applicable to the
cases at bar.
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 Borjaand 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.
