Jose Borja v.

TasianaVda De Borja
GR No. L-28040
August 18, 1972

FACTS:

Francisco de Borja (deceased) married Josefa Tangco (deceased). They had a

son, Jose, who became the sole administrator of the estate of his mother upon the
death of Francisco. It was Francisco who filed a petition for the probate of Josefa’s
will before the CFI Rizal. As for Francisco’s estate, it was his second wife, Tasiana
Ongisingco, who was appointed special administratrix.

There were several suits between the children of the 1st marriage and Tasiana;
including the case at bar. To put an end to the issue of Josefina’s estate, a compromise
agreement was made between the son of Francisco by his 1st marriage (Jose) and the
surviving spouse of Francisco by his 2nd marriage (Tasiana). Terms of the agreement:

o Sell the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala properties in Rizal, presently

under administration of Josefa
o Jose must pay Tasiana P800k as settlement of her hereditary share in the
estate of Francisco
o They both mutually renounce, withdraw any action or suits or debts
which they may have against each other

Jose submitted to CFI Rizal and CFI Nueva Ecija for the approval of the
agreement. Tasiana opposed both. CFI Rizal approved and Tasiana appealed. On the
other hand, CFI NE declared it null and void and Jose appealed such disapproval.
Tasiana was contending that the heirs cannot enter into such agreement without first
probating the will.

Tasiana used Guevara vs Guevara where SC ruled that the probate of the will is
mandatory and the settlement is against the law and public policy. She also said that
Rule 74 Sec1 provides that the conditions for validity of extrajudicial settlement
between heirs is if the decedent left no will and no debt, and heirs are all of age xxx.
Since the will is still in Nueva Ecija Court pending probation when the 1963
agreement was made, it bars the validity of the agreement.

Jose, on the other hand, stressed that at the time it was entered into (Oct 12,
1963), the provision was ROC Rule 74 Sec 1 which allowed extrajudicial settlement
regardless of WON he left a will. He also used the dissenting opinion of Justice
Moran in Guevara case where it was said that if the parties have already divided the
estate in accordance with a decedent’s will, the probate of the 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid even if there was no probate of
the will?

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the ruling in Guevara case is not applicable since
there was no attempt to distribute the estate of Francisco among the heirs before the
probate of the will. The object of the contract was merely the conveyance by Tasiana
of any and all her individual share in the estate of Francisco and Josefa. There is no
stipulation as to any other claimant, creditor or legatee. And as a hereditary share in a
decedent’s estate is vested immediately from the moment of death (Art 777) there is
no legal bar to a successor disposing of his hereditary share immediately after such
death, even if the actual extent is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of
the estate. Such alienation is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor
heir. However, the aleatory character does not affect the validity of the transaction;
neither does the coetaneous agreement that the numerous litigations between the
parties are to be considered settled, although such stipulation 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.

Also, Tasiana is the surviving spouse and thus a compulsory heir. Her
successional interest existed independent of the last will and testament and would
exist even if such will were not probated at all. Thus, a probate of the will as a
prerequisite does not apply.

The Supreme Court ruled that the transaction was binding on both in their
individual capacities upon the perfection of the contract even without Court’s
authority. Only difference between an extrajudicial compromise and one that is
submitted by the Court is that the latter can be enforced by execution proceedings as
per CC 2037: A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res
judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with judicial
compromise.

CFI Rizal had no jurisdiction to approve the compromise with Jose because
Tasiana was not an heir in the estate of Josefa pending settlement in the Rizal Court,
but she was an heir of Francisco, whose estate was the object of the special
proceeding of CFI Nueva Ecija. But this is irrelevant, since what was sold by Tasiana
was only her eventual share in the estate of her late husband, not the estate itself; and
that eventual share she owned from the time of Francisco’s death and the Court 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 as per CC 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 1 months from the time
they were notified in writing of the sale of the vendor.