[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.] 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.] TASIANA O. VDA. DE 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
What happened:
1940: Francisco de Borja, after the death of his wife, filed a petition for the probate of her will
with the RTC.
1946: Francisco de Borja was appointed executor and administrator.
1952: Their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-administrator who became the sole
administrator upon his father’s death in 1954.
Tasiana Ongsingco, second wife, instituted testate proceedings with RTC in Nueva Ecija
Validity of the marriage is questioned.
October 12, 1963: parties executed a compromise agreement.
May 16, 1966: Jose de Borja submitted the said agreement for court approval in the RTC of Rizal,
which approved the agreement and in Nueva Ecija which declared the agreement void and
unenforceable.
Tasiana attacks the validity of the said agreement.
Actions:
a. Appellees
appealed Nueva Ecija’s order of disapproval
b. Appellants
appealed the Rizal Court's order of approval
Contentions:
a. Appellees
o Stresses that at the time it was entered into, on 12 October 1963, the governing
provision was Section 1, Rule 74 of the original Rules of Court of 1940, which
allowed the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of a deceased person regardless of
whether he left a will or not
b. Appellants
o the heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the will
of Francisco de Borja
o that the same involves a compromise on the validity of the marriage between
Francisco de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco
o that even if it were valid, it has ceased to have force and effect
o 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
o Asserts that Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Revised Rules explicitly conditions the
validity of an extrajudicial settlement of a decedent's estate by agreement between
heirs, upon the facts that "(if) the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs
are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial and legal
representatives and since Fransisco left a will, such fact will bar the validity of the
agreement
Main Issue:
1. Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid.
2. Whether or not the Hacienda de Jalajala forms part of the conjugal partnership of his first
marriage.
3.
SC Ruling:
1. Yes. Since the compromise contract was entered into by and between "Jose de Borja personally
and as administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco" on the one hand, and on the other,
"the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco
Vda. de de Borja," it is clear that the transaction was binding on both in their individual
capacities, upon the perfection of the contract, even without previous authority of the court to
enter into the same. Tasiana argument that Rizal has no jurisdiction to approve the compromise
agreement because she was not an heir in the estate of Josefa Tangco pending settlement in the
Rizal Court, but that of Francisco de Borja, whose estate was the object of Special Proceeding in
Nueva Ecija was held irrelevant as what was sold was only her eventual share in the estate of
her late husband, not the estate itself. We conclude that in so doing, the Rizal court acted in
accordance with law, and, therefore, its order should be upheld, while the contrary resolution of
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija should be, and is, reversed. (G.R. No. L-28040 & G.R.
No. L-28568)
2. Yes. We find the conclusions of the lower court to be untenable. The evidence reveals, and the
appealed order admits, that the character of the Hacienda in question as owned by the conjugal
partnership De Borja-Tangco was solemnly admitted by the late Francisco de Borja no less than
two times: First, in the Reamended Inventory that, as executor of the estate of his deceased
wife Josefa Tangco, he filed in the Special Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal on 23 July 1953; and again, in the Reamended Accounting of the same date, also filed in
the proceedings aforesaid. It may be true that the inventories relied upon by defendant-
appellant 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. Plainly, the legal presumption in
favor of the conjugal character of the Hacienda de Jalajala now in dispute has not been
rebutted but actually confirmed by proof.
