Guevarra, 74 Phil.

479, which holds 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, is not applicable where the clear
abject of the settlement was merely the conveyance by the heir of
any and all her individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in
the estate of the decedent and not the distribution of the said estate
VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 577
among the heirs before the probate of the will.
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
Remedial law; Testate and intestate proceedings; Settlement
entered into by heir in his individual capacity does not need court
No. L-28040. August 18, 1972. approval.·Where the compromise agreement entered into by and
between the various heirs in the personal capacity, the same is
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO,JOSE DE binding upon them as individuals, upon the perfection of the
BORJA, admin-istrator-appellee; JOSE DE BORJA, as contract, even without previous authority of the Court to enter into
administrator, CAYETANO DE BORJA,MATILDE DE such agreement. The only difference between an extrajudicial
BORJA and CRISANTO DE BORJA (deceased) as Children compromise and one that is submitted and approved by the Court,
of Josefa Tangco, appellees, vs. TASIANA VDA. DE DE is that the latter can be enforced by execu-tion proceedings.
BORJA, Special Ad-ministratrix of the Testate Estate of
Civil law; Succession; Heir may sell her hereditary rights to co-
Francisco de Bor-ja, appellant.
heir.·As owner of her individual share, an heir could dispose of it
in favor of whomsoever she chose, including another heir of the
No. L-28568. August 18, 1972. same defendant. Such alienation is expressly recognized and
provided for by Article 1088 of the present Civil Code.
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE F RANCISCO DE B
Same; Same; Case at bar, agreement does not compromise status
ORJA,TA-SIANA O. VDA. DE DE BORJA, special
of heir and her marriage.·A contract which describes one of the
Administratrix appellee, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, oppositor-
heirs as „the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his
appellant.
second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja,‰ in itself is a
definite admission of such heirÊs civil status in relation to the
No. L-28611. August 18, 1972. decedent. There is nothing in the text of the agreement that would
show that this recognition of Ong-singcoÊs status as the surviving
TASIANA O. VDA. DE DE BORJA, as Administratrix of spouse of Francisco de Borja was only made in consideration of the
the Tes-tate Estate of the late Francisco de Borja, plaintiff- cession of her hereditary rights.
appellee, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, as Administrator of the
Remedial law; Compromise; Inability of parties to draw new
Testate Estate of the late Josefa Tangco, defendant-
agreement does not annul a prior one.·The inability among the
appellant.
heirs to reach a novatory accord can not invalidate the original
compromise among them and any of the latter is justified in finally
578 seeking a court order for the approval and enforcement of such
compromise.
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Civil law; Contracts; Party who caused the delay in the
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja enforcement of a contract cannot complain of subsequent
devaluation of currency amd increase of price of land.·In her brief,

Civil law; Wills; Remedial law; Testate and intestate pro. 579
ceedings; Rule of nullity of extrajudicial settlement prior to probate
of will inapplicable to case at bar.·The doctrine of Guevarra vs.
 VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 579 Sevilla & Aquino for special administratrix-appellee.
Pelaez, Jdtandoni & Jamir for oppositor-appellant.
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
580

Ongsingco also pleads that the time elapsed in the appeal has
affected her unfavorably, in that while the purchasing power of the 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
agreed price of P800,000 has diminished, the value of the Jalajala De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
property has increased. But the fact is that her delay in receiving
the payment of the agreed price for her hereditary interest was
L-28611
primarily due to her attempts to nullify the agreements she had
formally entered into with the advice of her counsel. And as to the APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
devaluation of our currency, what we said in Dizon Rivera vs. Dizon, Rizal (Branch X). Mariano, J.
33 SCRA, 554, that „estates would never be settled if there were to
be a revaluation with every subsequent fluctuation in the values of The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
currency and properties of the estate,‰ is particularly apposite in Sevilla & Aquino for plaintiff-appellee.
the present case. Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir and David Guevara for
Remedial law; Evidence; Case at bar. self-serving statement of de-fendant-appellant.
decedent overpowered by several admissions against interest.·It
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
may be true that the inventories relied upon by defendant-appellant
are not conclusive on the conjugal character of the property in
Of these cases, the first, numbered L-28040 is an appeal by
question; but as already noted, they are clear admissions against
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, special 1 adminis-
the pecuniary interest of the declarants Fran-cisco de Borja and his
tratrix of the testate estate of Francisco de Borja, from the
executor-widow, Tasiana Ongsingco, and as such of much greater
approval of a compromise agreement by the Court of First
probative weight than the self-serving statement of Francisco.
Instance of Rizal, Branch I, in its Special Proceeding No. R-
Plainly, the legal presumption in favor of the conjugal character of
7866, entitled, „Testate Estate of Josefa Tang-co, Jose de
the Hacienda now in dispute has not been rebutted but actually
Borja, Administrator‰.
confirmed by proof.
Case No. L-28568 is an appeal by administrator Jose de
Borja from the disapproval of the same compromise
L-28040
agreement by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Branch II, in its Special Proceeding No. 832, entitled,
Rizal (Branch I). Cecilio Muñoz-Palma, J. „Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana O. Vda. de
de Borja, Special Administratrix‰.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. And Case No. L-28611 is an appeal by administrator
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for administrator- Jose de Borja from the decision of the Court of First
appellee. Instance of Rizal, Branch X, in its Civil Case No. 7452,
Quiogue & Quiogue for appellee Matilde de Borja. declaring the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion, which is the
Andres Matias for appellee Cayetano de Borja. main object of the aforesaid compromise agreement, as the
Sevilla & Aquino for appellant. separate and exclusive property of the late Francisco de
Borja and not a conjugal asset of the community with his
L-28568 first wife, Josefa Tangco, and that said hacienda pertains
exclusively to his testate estate, which is under
APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of administration in Special Proceeding No. 832 of the Court
Nueva Ecija. Cuevas, J . of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch II.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
_______________ THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between
The heir and son of Francisco de Borja by his first marriage,
1 She died during the pendency of these appeals, being substituted by
namely, Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the
Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr., administrator of her estate (S. C. Resolution,
Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco,
27 February 1970).

581 _________________

2 Annex A, Record on Appeal, G.R. No. L-28040, pp. 16-21.

VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 581
582
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It is uncontested that Francisco de Borja, upon the death of
his wife Josef a Tangco on 6 October 1940, filed a petition De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
for the probate of her will which was docketed as Special
Proceeding No. R-7866 of the Court of First Instance of AND
Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated on 2 April 1941. In
The heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his
1946, Francisco de Borja was appointed executor and
second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, assisted by her
administrator: in 1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was
lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr.
appointed co-administrator. When Francisco died, on 14
April 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of the WITNESSETH
testate estate of his mother, Jose Tangco. While a widower
Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto himself a second THAT it is the mutual desire of all the parties herein to
wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon FranciscoÊs death, Tasiana terminate and settle, with finality, the various court litigations,
instituted testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance controversies, claims, counterclaims, etc., between them in
of Nueva Ecija, where, in 1955, she was appointed special connection with the administration, settlement, partition,
administratrix. The validity of TasianaÊs marriage to Fran- adjudication and distribution of the assets as well as liabilities of
cisco was questioned in said proceeding. the estates of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse of
The relationship between the children of the first Francisco de Borja.
marriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has been plagued with THAT with this end in view, the parties herein have agreed
several court suits and counter-suits; including the three voluntarily and without any reservations to enter into and execute
cases at bar, some eighteen (18) cases remain pending this agreement under the following terms and conditions:
determination in the courts. The testate estate of Josefa 1. That the parties agree to sell the Poblacion portion of the
Tangco alone has been unsettled for more than a quarter of Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala, Rizal, presently under
a century. In order to put an end to all these litigations, a administration in the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco (Sp. Proc. No.
compromise
2
agreement was entered into on 12 October 7866, Rizal), more specifically described as follows:
1963, by and between „[T]he heir and son of Francisco de
ÂLinda al Norte con el Rio Puwang que la separa de la jurisdiccion del
Borja by his first marriage, namely, Jose de Borja
Municipio de Pililla de la Provincia de Rizal, y con el pico del Monte
personally and as administrator of the Testate Estate of
Zambrano; al Oeste con la Laguna de Bay; por el Sur con los herederos de
Josefa Tang-co,‰ and „[T]he heir and surviving spouse of
Marcelo de Borja; y por el Este con los terrenos de la Familia MaronillaÊ
Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis with a segregated area of approximately 1,313 hectares at the
Panaguiton, Jr.‰ The terms and conditions of the amount of P0.30 per square meter.
compromise agreement are as follows: 2. That Jose de Borja agrees and obligates himself to pay
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the total amount of Eight
„AGREEMENT
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000) Philippine Currency, in cash,
which represent P200,000 as his share in the payment and whatsoever, in law or in equity, which they ever had, or now have or
P600,000 as pro-rata shares of the heirs Crisanto, Cayetano, and may have against each other, more specifically Sp. Proceedings Nos.
Matilde, all surnamed de Borja and this shall be considered as full 7866 and 1955, CFI-Rizal, and Sp. Proc. No. 832-Nueva Ecija, Civil
and complete payment and settlement of her hereditary share in Case No. 3033, CFI-Nueva Ecija and Civil Case No. 7452-CFI,
the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate of Rizal, as well as the case filed against Manuel Quijal for perjury
Josefa Tangco, Sp. Proc. No. 832-Nueva Ecija and Sp. Proc. No. with the Provincial Fistal of Rizal, the intention being to completely,
7866-Rizal, respectively, and to any properties bequeathed or absolutely and finally release each other, their heirs, successors,
devised in her favor by the late Francisco de Borja by Last Will and and assigns, from any and all liability, arising wholly or partially,
Testament or by Doñation Inter Vivos or Mortis Causa or directly or indirectly, from the administration, settlement, and
purportedly conveyed to her for consideration or otherwise. The distribution of the assets as well &s liabilities of the estates of
funds for this payment shall be taken from and shall depend upon Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse of Francisco de
the receipt of full payment of the proceeds of the sale of Jalajala, Borja, and lastly, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja expressly and
ÂPoblacion.Ê specifically renounce absolutely her rights as heir over any
hereditary share in the estate of Francisco de Borja.
583 6. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon receipt of the
payment under paragraph 4 hereof, shall deliver to the heir Jose de
VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 583 Borja all the papers, titles and documents belong-
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
584

3. That Tasiana Ongsinco Vda. de de Borja hereby assumes

payment of that particular obligation incurred by the late Francisco 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
de Borja in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, now De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
Development Bank of the Philippines, amounting to approximately
P30,000.00 and also assumes payment of her 1/5 share of the Estate ing to Francisco de Borja which are in her possession and said heir
and Inheritance taxes on the Estate of the late Francisco de Borja Jose de Borja shall issue in turn the corresponding receipt thereof.
or the sum of P3,500.00, more or less, which shall be deducted by 7. That this agreement shall take effect only upon the fulfillment
the buyer of Jalajala, ÂPoblacionÊ from the payment to be made to of the sale of the properties mentioned under paragraph 1 of this
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja under paragraph 2 of this agreement and upon receipt of the total and full payment of the
Agreement and paid directly to the Development Bank of the proceeds of the sale of the Jalajala property ÂPoblacionÊ, otherwise,
Philippines and the heirs-children of Francisco de Borja. the non-fulfillment of the said sale will render this instrument
4. Thereafter, the buyer of Jalajala ÂPoblacionÊ is hereby NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT THEREAFTER.
authorized to pay directly Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have here-unto set
balance of the payment due her under paragraph 2 of this their hands in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 12th of October,
Agreement (approximately P766,500.00) and issue in the name of 1963.‰
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, corresponding certified
checks/treasury warrants, who, in turn, will issue the corresponding On 16 May 1968, Jose de Borja submitted for Court
receipt to Jose de Borja. approval the agreement of 12 October 1963 to the Court of
5. In consideration of above payment to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. First Instance of Rizal, in Special Proceeding No. R-7866;
de de Borja, Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the and again, on 8 August 1966, to the Court of First Instance
Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, and Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de of Nueva Ecija, in Special Proceeding No. 832. Tasiana
Borja, for themselves and for their heirs, successors, executors, Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja opposed in both instances. The
administrators, and assigns, hereby forever mutually renounce, Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the
withdraw, waive, remise, release and discharge any and all manner Nueva Ecija court declared it void and unenforceable
of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, sum or Special administratrix Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja
sums of money, accounts, damages, claims and demands appealed the Rizal CourtÊs order of approval (now Supreme
Court G.R. case No. L-28040), while administrator Jose de wherein was expressed the view that if the parties have
Borja appealed the order of disapproval (G.R. case No. L- already divided the estate in accordance with a decedentÊs
28568) by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. will, the probate of the will is a useless ceremony; and if
The genuineness and due execution of the compromise they have divided the estate in a different manner, the
agreement of 12 October 1963 is not disputed, but its probate of the will is worse than useless.
validity is, nevertheless, attacked by Tasiana Ongsingco on The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara, ante, is not
the ground that: (1) the heirs cannot enter into such kind of applicable to the case at bar. This is apparent from an
agreement without first probating the will of Francisco de examination of the terms of the agreement between Jose de
Borja; (2) that the same involves a compromise on the Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco. Paragraph 2 of said
validity of the marriage between Francisco de Borja and agreement specifically stipulates that the sum of P800,000
Tasiana Ongsingco; and (3) that even if it were valid, it has payable to Tasiana Ongsingco·
ceased to have force and effect.
In assailing the validity of the agreement of 12 October „shall be considered as full·complete payment·settlement of her
1963, Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva hereditary share in the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as well
Ecija rely on this CourtÊs decision in Guevara vs. Guevara, as the estate of Josefa Tangco, xxx and to any properties
74 PhiL 479, wherein the CourtÊs majority held the view bequeathed or devised in her favor by the late Francisco de Borja by
that the presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter Vivos or Mortis
Causa or purportedly conveyed to her for consideration or
585 otherwise.‰

586
VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 585
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
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. It is likewise pointed out by This provision evidences beyond doubt that the ruling in
appellant Tasiana Ongsingco that Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Guevara case is not applicable to the cases at bar.
the Revised Rules explicitly conditions the validity of an There was here no attempt to settle or distribute the estate
extrajudicial settlement of a decedentÊs estate by of Francisco de Borja among the heirs thereto before the
agreement between heirs, upon the facts that „(if) the probate of his will. The clear object of the contract was
decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of merely the conveyance by Tasiana Ongsingco of any and all
age, or the minors are represented by their judicial and her individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in the
legal representatives . . .‰ The will of Francisco de Borja estate of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. There is no
having been submitted to the Nueva Ecija Court and still stipulation as to any other claimant, creditor or legatee
pending probate when the 1963 agreement was made, And as a hereditary share in a decedentÊs estate is
those circumstances, it is argued, bar the validity of the transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the
agreement. death of such causante or predecessor
3
in interest (Civil
Upon the other hand, in claiming the validity of the Code of the Philippines, Art. 777) there is no legal bar to a
compromise agreement, Jose de Borja stresses that at the successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of
time it was entered into, on 12 October 1963, the governing her or his hereditary share immediately after such death,
provision was Section 1, Rule 74 of the original Rules of even if the actual extent of such share is not 4determined
Court of 1940, which allowed the extrajudicial settlement until the subsequent liquidation of the estate. Of course,
of the estate of a deceased person regardless of whether he the effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to what
left a will or not. He also relies on the dissenting opinion of is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, the
Justice Moran, in Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479, aleatory character of the contract does not affect the
validity of the transaction; neither does the coetaneous 2037 of the Civil Code is explicit on the point:
agreement that the numerous litigations between the
parties (the approving order of the Rizal Court enumerates Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
fourteen of them, Rec. App. pp. 79-82) are to be considered authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in
settled and should be dismissed, although such stipulation, compliance with a judicial compromise.
as noted by the Rizal Court, gives the contract the
It is argued by Tasiana Ongsingco that while the
character of a compromise that the law favors, for obvious
agreement Annex A expressed no definite period for its
reasons, if only because it serves to avoid a multiplicity of
performance, the same was intended to have a resolutory
suits.
period of 60 days for its effectiveness. In support of such
It is likewise worthy of note in this connection that as
contention, it is averred that such a limit was expressly
the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ong-
stipulated in an agreement in similar terms entered into by
singco was his compulsory heir under article 995 et seq. of
said Ongsingco with the brothers and sister of Jose de
the present Civil Code. Wherefore, barring unworthiness or
Borja, to wit, Crisanto, Matilde and Cayetano, all
valid disinheritance, her successional interest existed
surnamed de Borja, except that the consideration was fixed
independent of Francisco de BorjaÊs last will and tes-
at P600,-000 (Opposition, Annex/Rec. of Appeal, L-28040,
pp. 39-46) and which contained the following clause:
_______________
„III. That this agreement, shall take effect only upon the
3 Also: Osorio vs. Osorio Steamship Co., 41 Phil. 531; Baun vs. Heirs of consummation of the sale of the property mentioned herein and
Baun, 53 Phil. 654; Barretto vs. Tuason, 59 Phil 845; Cuevas vs. upon receipt of the total and full payment of the proceeds of the sale
Abesamis, 71 Phil. 147; Jayme vs. Gamboa, 75 Phil. 479; Iballe vs. Po. by the herein owner heirs-children of Francisco de Borja, namely,
4 Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 279; Jakosalem vs. Rafols 73 Phil. 628. Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all surnamed de Borja; Provided
that if no sale of the said property mentioned herein is
587
consummated, or the non-receipt of the purchase price thereof by
the said owners within the period of sixty (60) days
VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 587
588
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tament, and would exist even if such will were not probated
at all. Thus, the prerequisite of a previous probate of the De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
will, as established in the Guevara and analogous cases,
can not apply to the case of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de from the date hereof, this agreement will become null and void and
Borja. of no further effect.‰
Since the compromise contract Annex A was entered into
by and between „Jose de Borja personally and as OngsingcoÊs argument loses validity when it is considered
administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco‰ on that Jose de Borja was not a party to this particular
the one hand, and on the other, „the heir and surviving contract (Annex 1), and that the same appears not to have
spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, been finalized, since it bears no date, the day being left
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja‰, it is clear that the blank „this d ay of O ctober 1963‰; and while signed by the
transaction was binding on both in their individual parties, it was not notarized, although plainly intended to
capacities, upon the perfection of the contract, even without be so done, since it carries a proposed notarial ratification
previous authority of the Court to enter into the same. The clause. Furthermore, the compromise contract with Jose de
only difference between an extrajudicial compromise and Borja (Annex A), provides in its par. 2 heretofore
one that is submitted and approved by the Court, is that transcribed that of the total consideration of P800,-000 to
the latter can be enforced by execution proceedings. Art. be paid to Ongsingco, P600,000 represent the „pro rata
share of the heirs Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all recognized and provided for by article 1088 of the present
surnamed de BorjaÊÊ which corresponds to the consideration Civil Code:
of P600,000 recited in Annex 1, and that circumstance is
proof that the duly notarized contract entered into with Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
Jose de Borja under date 12 October 1963 (Annex A), was stranger before the partition, any or all of the coheirs may be
designed to absorb and supersede the separate subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for
unformalized agreement with the other three Borja heirs. the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one
Hence, the 60 days resolutory term in the contract with the month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale of the
latter (Annex 1) not being repeated in Annex A, can not vendor.‰
apply to the formal compromise with Jose de Borja. It is
If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a stranger,
moreover manifest that the stipulation that the sale of the
then a fortiori sale thereof to a coheir could not be
Hacienda de Jalajala was to be made within sixty days
forbidden.
from the date of the agreement with Jose de BorjaÊs coheirs
Tasiana Ongsingco further argues that her contract with
(Annex 1) was plainly omitted in Annex A as improper and
Jose de Borja (Annex „A‰) is void because it amounts to a
ineffective, since the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) that
compromise as to her status and marriage with the late
was to be sold to raise the P800,000 to be paid to Ongsingco
Francisco de Borja. The point is without merit, for the very
for her share formed part of the estate of Francisco de
opening paragraph of the agreement with Jose de Borja
Borja and could not be sold until authorized by the Probate
(Annex „A‰) describes her as „the heir and surviving spouse
Court. The Court of First Instance of Rizal so understood it,
of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana
and in approving the compromise it fixed a term of 120
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja‰, which is in itself definite
days counted from the finality of the order now under
admission of her civil status. There is nothing in the text of
appeal, for the carrying out by the parties of the terms of
the agreement that would show that this recognition of
the contract.
OngsingcoÊs status as the surviving spouse of Francisco de
This brings us to the plea that the Court of First
Borja was only made in consideration of the cession of her
Instance of Rizal had no jurisdiction to approve the
hereditary rights.
compromise with Jose de Borja (Annex A) because Tasiana
It is finally charged by appellant Ongsingco, as well as
Ongsingco was not an heir in the estate of Josefa Tangco
by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of
pend-
21 September 1964, in Special Proceedings No. 832
589 (Amended Record on Appeal in L-28568, page 157), that

590
VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 589
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
ing settlement in the Rizal Court, but she was an heir of
Francisco de Borja, whose estate was the object of Special
the compromise agreement of 13 October 1963 (Annex „A‰)
Proceeding No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
had been abandoned, as shown by the fact that, after its
Ecija. This circumstance is irrelevant, since what was sold
execution, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in its
by Tasiana Ongsingco was only her eventual share in the
order of 21 September 1964, had declared that „no amicable
estate of her late husband, not the estate itself; and as
settlement had been arrived at by the partiesÊÊ, and that
already shown, that eventual share she owned from the
Jose de Borja himself, in a motion of 17 June 1964, had
time of FranciscoÊs death and the Court of Nueva Ecija
stated that the proposed amicable settlement „had failed to
could not bar her selling it. As owner of her undivided
materialize‰.
hereditary share, Tasiana could dispose of it in favor of
It is difficult to believe, however, that the amicable
whomsoever she chose. Such alienation is expressly
settlement referred to in the order and motion above- In her brief, Tasiana Ongsingco also pleads that the time
mentioned was the compromise agreement of 13 October elapsed in the appeal has affected her unfavorably, in that
1963, which already had been formally signed and executed while the purchasing power of the agreed price of P800,000
by the parties and duly notarized. What the record has diminished, the value of the Jalajala property has
discloses is that some time after its formalization, increased. But the fact is that her delay in receiving tha
Ongsingco had unilaterally attempted to back out from the payment of the agreed price for her hereditary interest was
compromise agreement, pleading various reasons restated primarily due to her attempts to nullify the agreement
in the opposition to the CourtÊs approval of Annex „A‰ (Annex „A‰) she had formally entered into with the advice
(Record on Appeal, L-20840, page 23): that the same was of her counsel, Attorney Panaguiton. And as to the
invalid because of the lapse of the allegedly intended devaluation de facto of our currency, what We said in Di-
resolutory period of 60 days and because the contract was zon Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561, 30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 554,
not preceded by the probate of Francisco de BorjaÊs will, as that „estates would never be settled if there were to be a
required by this CourtÊs Guevarra vs. Guevara ruling; that revaluation with every subsequent fluctuation in the
Annex „A‰ involved a compromise affecting OngsingcoÊs values of currency and properties of the estate‰, is
status as wife and widow of Francisco de Borja, etc., all of particularly opposite in the present case.
which objections have been already discussed. It was Coming now to Case G.R. No. L-28611, the issue is
natural that in view of the widowÊs attitude, Jose de Borja whether the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion), concededly
should attempt to reach a new settlement or novatory acquired by Francisco de Borja during his marriage to his
agreement before seeking judicial sanction and first wife, Josefa Tangco, is the husbandÊs private property
enforcement of Annex „A‰, since the latter step might (as contended by his second spouse, Tasiana Ongsingco), or
ultimately entail a longer delay in attaining final remedy. whether it forms part of the conjugal (ganancial)
That the attempt to reach another settlement failed is partnership with Josefa Tangco. The Court of First
apparent from the letter of OngsingcoÊs counsel to Jose de Instance of Rizal (Judge Herminio Mariano, presiding)
Borja quoted in pages 35-36 of the brief for appellant declared that there was adequate evidence to overcome the
Ongsingco in G.R. No. L-28040; and it is more than presumption in favor of its conjugal character established
probable that the order of 21 September 1964 and the by Article 160 of the Civil Code.
motion of 17 June 1964 referred to the failure of the We are of the opinion that this question as between
partiesÊ quest for a more satisfactory compromise, But the Tasiana Ongsingco and Jose de Borja has become moot and
inability to reach a novatory accord can not invalidate the academic, in view of the conclusion reached by this Court
original compromise Â(Annex „A‰) and justifies the act of in the two preceding cases (G.R. No. L-28568), upholding as
Jose de Borja in finally seeking a court order for its valid the cession of Tasiana OngsingcoÊs eventual share in
approval and enforcement from the Court of First the estate of her late husband, Francisco de Borja, for

591 592

VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 591 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja

Instance of Rizal, which, as heretofore described, decreed the sum of P800,000 with the accompanying reciprocal
that the agreement be ultimately performed within 120 quitclaims between the parties. But as the question may
days from the finality of the order, now under appeal. affect the rights of possible creditors and legatees, its
We conclude that in so doing, the Rizal court acted in resolution is still imperative.
accordance with law, and, therefore, its order should be It is undisputed that the Hacienda Jalajala, of around
upheld, while the contrary resolution of the Court of First 4,363 hectares, had been originally acquired jointly by
Instance of Nueva Ecija should be, and is, reversed. Fran-cisco de Borja, Bernardo de Borja and Marcelo de
Borja, and their title thereto was duly registered in their the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) to be the exclusive
names as co-owners in Land Registration Case No. 528 of private property of the late Francisco de Borja, and his
the province of Rizal, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26403 (De Barjo vs. Administratrix, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, to be
Jugo, 54 Phil. 465). Subsequently, in 1931, the Hacienda entitled to its possession. Defendant Jose de Borja then
was partitioned among the co-owners: the Punta section appealed to this Court.
went to Marcelo de Borja; the Bagombong section to The evidence reveals, and the appealed order admits,
Bernardo de Borja, and the part in Jalajala proper that the character of the Hacienda in question as owned by
(Poblacion) corresponded to Francisco de Borja (V. De Borja the conjugal partnership De Borja-Tangco was solemnly
vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911, 932). admitted by the late Francisco de Borja no less than two
The lot allotted to Francisco was described as· times: first, in the Reamended Inventory that, as executor
of ihe estate of his deceased wife Josefa Tangco, he filed in
„Una Parcela de terreno en Poblacion, Jalajala: N. Puang River; E. the Special Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of First
Hermogena Romero; S. Heirs of Marcelo de Borja, O. Laguna de Instance of Rizal on 23 July 1953 (Exhibit „2‰); and again,
Bay; containing an area of 13,488,870 sq. m. more or less, assessed in the Reamended Accounting of the same date, also filed
at P297,410.‰ (Record on Appeal, pages 7 and 105) in the proceedings aforesaid (Exhibit „7‰). Similarly, the
plaintiff Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, herself, as oppositor in
On 20 November 1962, Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, as
the Estate of Josefa Tangco, submitted therein an
Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja,
inventory dated 7 September 1954 (Exhibit „3‰) listing the
instituted a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
Jalajala property among the „Conjugal Properties of the
Rizal (Civil Case No. 7452) against Jose de Borja, in his
Spouses Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco‰. And once
capacity as Administrator of Josef a Tangco (Francisco de
more, Tasiana Ongsingco, as administratrix of the Estate of
BorjaÊs first wife), seeking to have the Hacienda above
Francisco de Borja, in Special Proceedings No. 832 of the
described declared exclusive private property of Francisco,
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, submitted therein
while in his answer defendant (now appellant) Jose de
in December, 1955, an inventory wherein she listed the
Borja claimed that it was conjugal property of his parents
Jalajala Hacienda under the heading „Conjugal Property of
(Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco), conformably to the
the Deceased Spouses Francisco de Borja and Josefa
presumption established by Article 160 of the Philippine
Tangco, which are in the possession of the Administrator of
Civil Code (reproducing Article 1407 of the Civil Code of
the Testate Estate of the Deceased Josefa Tangco in Special
1889), to the effect that:
Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of First Instance of
„Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the Rizal‰ (Exhibit „4‰).
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively Notwithstanding the four statements aforesaid, and the
to the husband or to the wife.‰ fact that they are plain admissions against interest made
by both Francisco de Borja and the Administratrix of his
Defendant Jose de Borja further counterclaimed for estate, in the course of judicial proceedings in the Rizal and
damages, compensatory, moral and exemplary, as well as Nueva Ecija Courts, supporting the legal presumption in
for attorneyÊs fees. favor of the conjugal community, the Court below declared
that the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) was not conjugal
593
594

VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 593

De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, per Judge
Herminio Mariano, held that the plaintiff had adduced property, but the private exclusive property of the late
sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, and declared Francisco de Borja. It did so on the strength of the
following evidences: (a) the sworn statement by Francisco VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 595
de Borja on 6 August 1951 (Exhibit „F‰) that· De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja
„He tornado posesion del pedazo de terreno ya delimitado
(equivalente a 1/4 parte, 337 hectareas) adjunto a mi terreno We find the conclusions of the lower court to be untenable.
personal y exclusivo (Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal).‰ In the first place, witness Gregorio de BorjaÊs testimony as
to the source of the money paid by Francisco for his share
and (b) the testimony of Gregorio de Borja, son of Bernardo was plain hearsay, hence inadmissible and of no probative
de Borja, that the entire Hacienda had been bought at a value, since he was merely repeating what Marcelo de
foreclosure sale for P40,100.00, of which amount P25,-100 Borja had told him (Gregorio). There is no way of
was contributed by Bernardo de Borja and P15,000.00 by ascertaining the truth of the statement, since both Marcelo
Marcelo de Borja; that upon receipt of a subsequent and Francisco de Borja were already dead when Gregorio
demand from the provincial treasurer for realty taxes in testified. In addition, the statement itself is improbable,
the sum of P17,000, Marcelo told his brother Bernardo that since there was no need or occasion for Marcelo de Borja to
Francisco (son of Marcelo) wanted also to be a co-owner, explain to Gregorio how and when Francisco de Borja had
and upon BernardoÊs assent to the proposal, Marcelo issued earned the P17,000.00 entrusted to Marcelo. A ring of
a check for P17,000.00 to pay the back taxes and said that artificiality is clearly discernible in this portion of
the amount would represent FranciscoÊs contribution in the GregorioÊs testimony.
purchase of the Hacienda. The witness further testified As to Francisco de BorjaÊs affidavit, Exhibit „F‰, the
that· quoted portion thereof (ante, page 14) does not clearly
demonstrate that the „mi terreno personal y exclusivo
„Marcelo de Borja said that that money was entrusted to him by
(Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal)‰ refers precisely to the
Francisco de Borja when he was still a bachelor and which he
Hacienda in question. The inventories (Exhibits 3 and 4)
derived from his business transactions.‰ (Hearing, 2 February 1965,
disclose that there were two real properties in Jalajala
t.s.n., pages 13-15) (Italics supplied)
owned by Francisco de Borja, one of 72.038 sq. m., assessed
The Court below, reasoning that not only FranciscoÊs sworn at P44-600, and a much bigger one of 1,357.260.70 sq. m.,
statement overweighed the admissions in the inventories which is evidently the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion). To
relied upon by defendant-appellant Jose de Borja, since which of these lands did the affidavit of Francisco de Borja
probate courts can not finally determine questions of (Exhibit „F‰) refer to? In addition, FranciscoÊs
ownership of inventoried property, but that the testimony characterization of the land as „mi terreno personal y
of Gregorio de Borja showed that Francisco de Borja exclusivo‰ is plainly self-serving, and not admissible in the
acquired his share of the original Hacienda with his own absence of cross examination.
private funds, for which reason that share can not be It may be true that the inventories relied upon by
regarded as conjugal partnership property, but as exclusive defendant-appellant (Exhibits „2‰, „3‰, „4‰ and „7‰) are not
property of the buyer, pursuant to Article 1396 (4) of the conclusive on the conjugal character of the property in
Civil Code of 1889 and Article 148(4) of the Civil Code of question ; but as already noted, they are clear admissions
the Philippines. against the pecuniary interest of the declarants, Francisco
de Borja and his executor-widow, Tasiana Ongsingco, and
„The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse: as such of much greater probative weight than the self-
serving statement of Francisco (Exhibit „F‰). Plainly, the
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx legal presumption in favor of the conjugal character of the
„(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) now in dispute has not
of the husband.‰
been rebutted but actually confirmed by proof. Hence, the
appealed order should be reversed and the Hacienda de
595 Jala-
 596 issued in

597
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja VOL. 46, AUGUST 18, 1972 597
People vs. Largo
jala (Poblacion) declared property of the conjugal
partnership of Francisco de Borja and Josef a Tangco.
the civil case·may be sold in accordance with law, with the
No error having been assigned against the ruling of the
understanding that the sale is not of any definite and fixed
lower court that claims for damages should be ventilated in
share in any particular property, but only of what might be
the corresponding special proceedings for the settlement of
adjudicated to respondent upon the final liquidation of the
the estates of the deceased, the same requires no
estate. The sale, once made, shall be submitted to the
pronouncement from this Court.
probate court with jurisdiction over the special proceedings
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed order of
for proper consideration upon the final liquidation of said
the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Case No. L-28040 is
estate. Id., p. 1135.
hereby affirmed; while those involved in Cases Nos. L-
28568 and L-28611 are reversed and set aside. Costs ·······
against the appellant Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja in
all three (3) cases.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,

Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ.,
concur. Fernando, J., did not take part.

Order in Case No. L-28040 affirmed; those in Cases Nos. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

L-28568 and L-28611 reversed and set aside.

Notes.·On the matter of the share of the heir before

fined liquidation of the estate.·The participation of an heir
in an estate under judicial administration, although
indeterminable before the final liquidation of the estate,
may be attached and sold. While ordinary execution of
property in custodia legis is prohibited in order to avoid
interference with the possession by the court, yet the sale
made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to
the result of the pending administration, in no wise stands
in the way of such administration and, is therefore, valid,
with the understanding, however, that it would be effective
only as to the portion to be adjudicated to the vendor upon
the partition of the property under administration. Borja
vs. Mencias, L-20609, November 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1133
1135.
Whatever rights, interest, and participation belong to
respondent in the real properties under judicial
administration in the special proceedings·which have
been properly levied upon pursuant to the writ of execution