FIRST DIVISION

[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.

DECISION

REYES, J.B.L., J : p

Of these case, the first, numbered L-28040 is an appeal by Tasiana Ongsico

Vda. de de Borja, special administratrix of the testate estate of Francisco de Borja, 1
from the approval of a compromise agreement by the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch I. In its Special Proceeding No. R-7866, entitled, "Testate Estate of Josefa
Tangco, Jose de Borja, Administrator."
Case No. L-28568 is an appeal by administrator Jose de Borja from the
disapproval of the same compromise agreement by the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch II, in its Special Proceeding No. 832, entitled, "Testate Estate of
Francisco de Borja, Tasiana O. Vda. de de Borja, Special Administratrix".
And Case No. L-28611 is an appeal by administrator Jose de Borja from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch X, in its Civil Case No. 7452,
declaring the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion, which is the main object of the aforesaid
compromise agreement, as the separate and exclusive property of the late Francisco
de Borja and not a conjugal asset of the community with his first wife, Josefa Tangco,
and that said hacienda pertains exclusively to his testate estate, which is under
administration in Special Proceeding No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch II.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 It is uncontested that 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, Jose 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, 2 by and between "[T]he heir and son
of Francisco de Borja by his first marriage, namely, Jose de Borja personally and as
administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco," and "[T]he heir and surviving
spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de
Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr." The terms and conditions of
the compromise agreement are as follows:
"A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between
The heir and son of Francisco de Borja by his first marriage namely,
Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa
Tangco,
AND
The heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second
marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis
Panaguiton, Jr.
WITNESSETH
THAT it is the mutual desire of all the parties herein to terminate and
settle, with finality, the various court litigations, controversies, claims,
counterclaims, etc., between them in connection with the administration,
settlement, partition, adjudication and distribution of the assets as well as
liabilities of the estates of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse
of Francisco de Borja.
THAT with this end in view, the parties herein have agreed voluntarily
and without any reservations to enter into and execute this agreement under
the following terms and conditions:
1. That the parties agree to sell the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala
properties situated in Jalajala, Rizal, presently under administration in the
Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco (SP. Proc. No. 7866, Rizal), more specifically
described as follows:
'Linda al Norte con el Rio Puwang que la separa de la jurisdiccion
del Municipio de Pililla de la Provincia de Rizal, y con el pico del Monte
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Zambrano; al Oeste con la Laguna de Bay; por el Sur con los herederos
de Marcelo de Borja; y por el Este con los terrenos de la Familia Maronilla'

with a segregated area of approximately 1,313 hectares at the amount of

P0.30 per square meter.
2. That Jose de Borja agrees and obligates himself to pay Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the total amount of Eight Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P800,000) Philippine Currency, in cash, which represent P200,000 as
his share in the payment and P600,000 as pro-rata shares of the heirs Crisanto,
Cayetano, and Matilde, all surnamed de Borja and this shall be considered as
full and complete payment and settlement of her hereditary share in the estate
of the late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate of Josefa Tangco, Sp. Proc.
No. 832-Nueva Ecija and Sp. Proc. No. 7866-Rizal, respectively, 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. The funds for this
payment shall be taken from and shall depend upon the receipt of full payment
of the proceeds of the sale of Jalajala, 'Poblacion.'
3. That Tasiana Ongsinco Vda. de de Borja hereby assumes
payment of that particular obligation incurred by the late Francisco de Borja in
favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, now Development Bank of the
Philippines, amounting to approximately P30,000.00 and also assumes
payment of her 1/5 share of the Estate and Inheritance taxes on the Estate of
the late Francisco de Borja or the sum of P3,500.00, more or less, which shall
be deducted by the buyer of Jalajala, 'Poblacion' from the payment to be made
to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja under paragraph 2 of this Agreement and
paid directly to the Development Bank of the Philippines and the heirs-children
of Francisco de Borja.
4. Thereafter, the buyer of Jalajala 'Poblacion' is hereby authorized
to pay directly Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the balance of the payment
due her under paragraph 2 of this Agreement (approximately P766,500.00) and
issue in the name of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, corresponding
certified checks/treasury warrant, who, in turn, will issue the corresponding
receipt to Jose de Borja.
5. In consideration of above payment to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de
de Borja, Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the Testate Estate of
Josefa Tangco, and Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, for themselves and
for their heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns, hereby
forever mutually renounce, withdraw, waive, remise, release and discharge any
and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits, debts,
sum or sums of money, accounts, damages, claims and demands whatsoever,
in law or in equity, which they ever had, or now have or may have against each
other, more specifically Sp. Proceedings Nos. 7866 and 1955, CFI-Rizal, and
Sp. Proc. No 832-Nueva Ecija, Civil Case No. 3033, CFI-Nueva Ecija and Civil
Case No. 7452-CFI, Rizal, as well as the case filed against Manuel Quijal for
perjury with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, the intention being to completely,
absolutely and finally release each other, their heirs, successors, and assigns,
from any and all liability, arising wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, from the
administration, settlement, and distribution of the assets as well as liabilities of
the estates of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse of Francisco
de Borja, and lastly, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja expressly and
specifically renounce absolutely her rights as heir over any hereditary share in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 the estate of Francisco de Borja.
6. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon receipt of the
payment under paragraph 4 hereof, shall deliver to the heir Jose de Borja all the
papers, titles and documents belonging to Francisco de Borja which are in her
possession and said heir Jose de Borja shall issue in turn the corresponding
receipt thereof.
7. That this agreement shall take effect only upon the fulfillment of
the sale of the properties mentioned under paragraph 1 of this agreement and
upon receipt of the total and full payment of the proceeds of the sale of the
Jalajala property 'Poblacion', otherwise, the non-fulfillment of the said sale will
render this instrument NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT
THEREAFTER.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
hands in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 12th of October, 1963."
On 16 May 1966, Jose de Borja submitted for Court approval the agreement of
12 October 1963 to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in Special Proceeding No. R-
7866; and again, on 8 August 1966, to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in
Special Proceeding No. 832. Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja opposed in both
instances. The Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva Ecija
court declared it void and unenforceable. Special administratrix Tasiana Ongsingco
Vda. de de Borja appealed the Rizal Court's order of approval (now Supreme Court
G.R. case No. L-28040), while administrator Jose de Borja appealed the order of
disapproval (G.R. case No. L-28568) by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
The genuineness and due execution of the compromise 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.
It is likewise pointed out by appellant Tasiana Ongsingco 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 . . ." The will of Francisco de Borja having been
submitted to the Nueva Ecija Court and still pending probate when the 1963 agreement
was made, those circumstances, it is argued, bar the validity of the agreement.
Upon the other hand, in claiming the validity of the compromise agreement, Jose
de Borja 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. He also relies on the dissenting opinion of Justice Moran, in
Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479, wherein was expressed the view that if the parties
have already divided the estate in accordance with a decedent's will, the probate of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 will is a useless ceremony; and if they have divided the estate in a different manner, the
probate of the will is worse than useless.
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. 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) 3 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. 4 Of course, the effect of such alienation is to be
deemed limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, the
aleatory character of the contract does not affect the validity of the transaction; neither
does the coetaneous agreement that the numerous litigations between the parties (the
approving order of the Rizal Court enumerates fourteen of them, Rec. App. pp. 79-82)
are to be considered settled and should be dismissed, although such stipulation, as
noted by the Rizal Court, gives the contract the character of a compromise that the law
favors, for obvious reasons, if only because it serves to avoid a multiplicity of suits.
It is likewise worthy of note in this connection that as the surviving spouse of
Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was his compulsory heir under article 995 et
seq. of the present Civil Code. Wherefore, barring unworthiness or valid disinheritance,
her successional interest existed independent of Francisco de Borja's last will and
testament, and would exist even if such will were not probated at all. Thus, the
prerequisite of a previous probate of the will, as established in the Guevara and
analogous cases, can not apply to the case of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.
Since the compromise contract Annex A 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 The only difference
between an extrajudicial compromise and one that is submitted and approved by the
Court, is that the latter can be enforced by execution proceedings. Art. 2037 of the Civil
Code is explicit on the point:
Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance
with a judicial compromise.
It is argued by Tasiana Ongsingco that while the agreement Annex A expressed
no definite period for its performance, the same was intended to have a resolutory
period of 60 days for its effectiveness. In support of such contention, it is averred that
such a limit was expressly stipulated in an agreement in similar terms entered into by
said Ongsingco with the brothers and sister of Jose de Borja, to wit, Crisanto, Matilde
and Cayetano, all surnamed de Borja, except that the consideration was fixed 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
consummation of the sale of the property mentioned herein and upon receipt of
the total and full payment of the proceeds of the sale by the herein owner heirs-
children of Francisco de Borja, namely, Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all
surnamed de Borja; Provided that if no sale of the said property mentioned
herein is consummated, or the non-receipt of the purchase price thereof by the
said owners within the period of sixty (60) days from the date hereof, this
agreement will become null and void and of no further effect."
Ongsingco's argument loses validity when it is considered that Jose de Borja was
not a party to this particular contract (Annex 1), and that the same appears not to have
been finalized, since it bears no date, the day being left blank "this — day of October
1963"; and while signed by the parties, it was not notarized, although plainly intended to
be so done, since it carries a proposed notarial ratification clause. Furthermore, the
compromise contract with Jose de Borja (Annex A), provides in its par. 2 heretofore
transcribed that of the total consideration of P800,000 to be paid to Ongsingco,
P600,000 represent the "pro rata share of the heirs Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all
surnamed de Borja" which corresponds to the consideration of P600,000 recited in
Annex 1, and that circumstance is proof that the duly notarized contract entered into
with Jose de Borja under date 12 October 1963 (Annex A), was designed to absorb and
supersede the separate unformalized agreement with the other three Borja heirs.
Hence, the 60 days resolutory term in the contract with the latter (Annex 1) not being
repeated in Annex A, can not apply to the formal compromise with Jose de Borja. It is
moreover manifest that the stipulation that the sale of the Hacienda de Jalajala was to
be made within sixty days from the date of the agreement with Jose de Borja's coheirs
(Annex 1) was plainly omitted in Annex A as improper and ineffective, since the
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) that was to be sold to raise the P800,000 to be paid
to Ongsingco for her share formed part of the estate of Francisco de Borja and could
not be sold until authorized by the Probate Court. The Court of First Instance of Rizal so
understood it, and in approving the compromise it fixed a term of 120 days counted
from the finality of the order now under appeal, for the carrying out by the parties of the
terms of the contract.
This brings us to the plea that the Court of First In stance of Rizal had no
jurisdiction to approve the compromise with Jose de Borja (Annex A) because Tasiana
Ongsingco was not an heir in the estate of Josefa Tangco pending settlement in the
Rizal Court, but she was an heir of Francisco de Borja, whose estate was the object of
Special Proceeding No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. This
circumstance is irrelevant, since what was sold by Tasiana Ongsingco was only her
eventual share in the estate of her late husband, not the estate itself; and as already
shown, that eventual share she owned from the time of Francisco's death and the Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of Nueva Ecija could not bar her selling it. As owner of her undivided hereditary share,
Tasiana could dispose of it in favor of whomsoever she chose Such alienation is
expressly recognized and provided for by article 1088 of the present Civil Code:
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the
rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided
they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in
writing of the sale of the vendor."
If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a stranger, then a fortiori sale
thereof to a coheir could not be forbidden.
Tasiana Ongsingco further argues that her contract with Jose de Borja (Annex
"A") is void because it amounts to a compromise as to her status and marriage with the
late Francisco de Borja. The point is without merit, for the very opening paragraph of
the agreement with Jose de Borja (Annex "A") describes her as "the heir and surviving
spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
Borja", which is in itself definite admission of her civil status. There is nothing in the text
of the agreement that would show that this recognition of Ongsingco's status as the
surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja was only made in consideration of the cession
of her hereditary rights.
It is finally charged by appellant Ongsingco, as well as by the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of 21 September 1964, in Special Proceedings No.
832 (Amended Record on Appeal in L-28568, page 157), that the compromise
agreement of 13 October 1963 (Annex "A") had been abandoned, as shown by the fact
that, after its execution, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in its order of 21
September 1964, had declared that "no amicable settlement had been arrived at by the
parties", and that Jose de Borja himself, in a motion of 17 June 1964, had stated that
the proposed amicable settlement "had failed to materialize".
It is difficult to believe, however, that the amicable settlement referred to in the
order and motion above-mentioned was the compromise agreement of 13 October
1963, which already had been formally signed and executed by the parties and duly
notarized. What the record discloses is that some time after its formalization,
Ongsingco had unilaterally attempted to back out from the compromise agreement,
pleading various reasons restated in the opposition to the Court's approval of Annex "A"
(Record on Appeal, L-20840, page 23): that the same was invalid because of the lapse
of the allegedly intended resolutory period of 60 days and because the contract was not
preceded by the probate of Francisco de Borja's will, as required by this Court's
Guevarra vs. Guevara ruling; that Annex "A" involved a compromise affecting
Ongsingco's status as wife and widow of Francisco de Borja, etc., all of which
objections have been already discussed. It was natural that in view of the widow's
attitude, Jose de Borja should attempt to reach a new settlement or novatory agreement
before seeking judicial sanction and enforcement of Annex "A", since the latter step
might ultimately entail a longer delay in attaining final remedy. That the attempt to reach
another settlement failed is apparent from the letter of Ongsingco's counsel to Jose de
Borja quoted in pages 35-36 of the brief for appellant Ongsingco in G.R. No. L-28040;
and it is more than probable that the order of 21 September 1964 and the motion of 17
June 1964 referred to the failure of the parties' quest for a more satisfactory
compromise. But the inability to reach a novatory accord can not invalidate the original
compromise (Annex "A") and justifies the act of Jose de Borja in finally seeking a court
order for its approval and enforcement from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 as heretofore described, decreed that the agreement be ultimately performed within 120
days from the finality of the order, now under appeal.
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.
In her brief, Tasiana Ongsingco also pleads that the time elapsed in the appeal
has affected her unfavorably, in that while the purchasing power of the agreed price of
P800,000 has diminished, the value of the Jalajala property has increased. But the fact
is that her delay in receiving the payment of the agreed price for her hereditary interest
was primarily due to her attempts to nullify the agreement (Annex "A") she had formally
entered into with the advice of her counsel, Attorney Panaguiton. And as to the
devaluation de facto of our currency, what We said in Dizon Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561,
30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 554, that "estates would never be settled if there were to be a
revaluation with every subsequent fluctuation in the values of currency and properties of
the estate", is particularly opposite in the present case.
Coming now to 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 The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Judge
Herminio Mariano, presiding) declared that there was adequate evidence to overcome
the presumption in favor of its conjugal character established by Article 160 of the Civil
Code.
We are of the opinion that this question as between Tasiana Ongsingco and Jose
de Borja has become moot and academic, in view of the conclusion reached by this
Court in the two preceding cases (G.R. No. L-28568), upholding as valid the cession of
Tasiana Ongsingco's eventual share in the estate of her late husband, Francisco de
Borja, for the sum of P800,000 with the accompanying reciprocal quit-claims between
the parties. But as the question may affect the rights of possible creditors and legatees,
its resolution is still imperative.
It is undisputed that the Hacienda Jalajala, of around 4,363 hectares, had been
originally acquired jointly by Francisco de Borja, Bernardo de Borja and Marcelo de
Borja, and their title thereto was duly registered in their names as co-owners in Land
Registration Case No. 528 of the province of Rizal, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26403 (De Barjo
vs. Jugo, 54 Phil. 465). Subsequently, in 1931, the Hacienda was partitioned among the
co-owners: the Punta section went to Marcelo de Borja; the Bagombong section to
Bernardo de Borja, and the part in Jalajala proper (Poblacion) corresponded to
Francisco de Borja (V. De Borja vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911, 932).
The lot allotted to Francisco was described as —
"Una Parcela de terreno en Poblacion, jalajala: N. Puang Rier; E.
Hermogena Romero; S. Heirs of Marcelo de Borja, O. Laguna de Bay;
containing an area of 13,488,870 sq. m. more or less, assessed at P297,410."
(Record on Appeal, pages 7 and 105)
On 20 November 1962, Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, as Administratrix of the
Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, instituted a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 7452) against Jose de Borja, in his capacity as
Administrator of Josefa Tangco (Francisco de Borja's first wife), seeking to have the
Hacienda above described declared exclusive private property of Francisco, while in his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 answer defendant (now appellant) Jose de Borja claimed that it was conjugal property
of his parents (Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco), conformably to the presumption
established by Article 160 of the Philippine Civil Code (reproducing Article 1407 of the
Civil Code of 1889), to the effect that:
"Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife."
Defendant Jose de Borja further counterclaimed for damages, compensatory,
moral and exemplary, as well as for attorney's fees.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, per Judge Herminio Mariano, held
that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, and declared
the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) to be the exclusive private property of the late
Francisco de Borja, and his Administratrix, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, to be
entitled to its possession. Defendant Jose de Borja then appealed to this Court.
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 (Exhibit "2"); and again, in the Reamended Accounting of the
same date, also filed in the proceedings aforesaid (Exhibit "7"). Similarly, the plaintiff
Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, herself, as oppositor in the Estate of Josefa Tangco,
submitted therein an inventory dated 7 September 1954 (Exhibit "3") listing the Jalajala
property among the "Conjugal Properties of the Spouses Francisco de Borja and Josefa
Tangco". And once more, Tasiana Ongsingco, as administratrix of the Estate of
Francisco de Borja, in Special Proceedings No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija, submitted therein in December, 1955, an inventory wherein she listed the
Jalajala Hacienda under the heading "Conjugal Property of the Deceased Spouses
Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, which are in the possession of the
Administrator of the Testate Estate of the Deceased Josefa Tangco in Special
Proceedings No 7866 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal" (Exhibit "4").
Notwithstanding the four statements aforesaid, and the fact that they are plain
admissions against interest made by both Francisco de Borja and the Administratrix of
his estate, in the course of judicial proceedings in the Rizal and Nueva Ecija Courts,
supporting the legal presumption in favor of the conjugal community, the Court below
declared that the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) was not conjugal property, but the
private exclusive property of the late Francisco de Borja. It did so on the strength of the
following evidences: (a) the sworn statement by Francisco de Borja on 6 August 1951
(Exhibit "F") that —
"He tomado posesion del pedazo de terreno ya delimitado (equivalente a
1/4 parte, 337 hectareas) adjunto a mi terreno personal y exclusivo (Poblacion
de Jalajala, Rizal)."
and (b) the testimony of Gregorio de Borja, son of Bernardo de Borja, that the entire
Hacienda had been bought at a foreclosure sale for P40,100.00, of which amount
P25,100 was contributed by Bernardo de Borja and P15,000.00 by Marcelo de Borja;
that upon receipt of a subsequent demand from the provincial treasurer for realty taxes
in the sum of P17,000, Marcelo told his brother Bernardo that Francisco (son of
Marcelo) wanted also to be a co-owner, and upon Bernardo's assent to the proposal,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Marcelo issued a check for P17,000.00 to pay the back taxes and said that the amount
would represent Francisco's contribution in the purchase of the Hacienda. The witness
further testified that —
"Marcelo de Borja said that money was entrusted to him by Francisco de
Borja when he was still a bachelor and which he derived from his business
transactions." (Hearing, 2 February 1965, t.s.n., pages 13-15) (Emphasis
supplied)
The Court below, reasoning that not only Francisco's sworn statement
overweighed the admissions in the inventories relied upon by defendant-appellant Jose
de Borja, since probate courts can not finally determine questions of ownership of
inventoried property, but that the testimony of Gregorio de Borja showed that Francisco
de Borja acquired his share of the original Hacienda with his own private funds, for
which reason that share can not be regarded as conjugal partnership property, but as
exclusive property of the buyer, pursuant to Article L-1396 (4) of the Civil Code of 1889
and Article 148 (4) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
"The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:
xxx xxx xxx
"(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of
the husband."
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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 pronouncement from
this Court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed order of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal in Case No. L-28040 is 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.

Footnotes
1. She died during the pendency of these appeals, being substituted by Atty. Luis
Panaguiton, Jr., administrator of her estate (S. C. Resolution, 27 February 1970).
2. Annex A, Record on Appeal, GR. No. L-28040, pp. 16-21.
3. Also: Osorio vs. Osorio Steamship Co., 41 Phil. 531; Baun vs. Heirs of Baun, 53 Phil.
654; Barretto vs. Tuason, 59 Phil. 845; Cuevas vs. Abesamis, 71 Phil. 147; Jayme vs.
Gamboa, 75 Phil. 479; Iballe vs. Po.
4. Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 279; Jakosalem vs. Rafols, 73 Phil. 628.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com