DE BORJA v. VDA.
DE BORJA (ARCE) of Francisco’s last will and testament and would exist even if such will were
18 August 1972 | Reyes, JBL, J. | G.R. No. L-28040
Disposal of Hereditary Share After Death of Decedent
PETITIONER: 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
RESPONDENTS: TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, Special Administratrix of
the Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, appellant.
SUMMARY
FACTS: Petitioner Jose De Borja was the son of Francisco de Borja and
Josefa Tangco. Upon Josefa’s death, Francisco was appointed as executor
and administrator, and later Jose was appointed as co-administrator.
Francisco, while then a widower, allegedly married the respondent
(Tasiana). When Francisco died, Jose became the sole administrator of
Josefa. Tasiana instituted testate proceedings, where she was appointed
special administratrix of Francisco’s estate. On October 12, 1963, a
compromise agreement was entered into between Jose and Tasiana put an
end to all these litigations. litigations. Jose de Borja submitted the compromise
agreement to the Court of First Instance of Rizal and to the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija. 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. The validity of the
said document was attacked by Tasiana claiming that the presentation of a
will for probate is mandatory and that the settlement and distribution of an
estate based on intestacy when the decedent left a will, is against public
policy.
ISSUE: W/N the compromise agreement is valid despite the fact that it has
not yet been probated – YES
RULING: A pre-requisite of previous probate of a will is not needed in this
case. The object of the compromise agreement was merely the conveyance
by Tasiana of any and all her individual share and interest, actual or
eventual, in the estate of Francisco and Josefa. [See doctrine] As the
surviving spouse of Francisco, Tasiana was his compulsory heir under Art.
995 of the present Civil Code. Her successional interest existed independent
not probated at all. The compromise agreement entered by and between
Jose and Tasiana was binding their individual capacities upon the
perfection of the contract, even without previous authority of the Court.
DOCTRINE: The hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or
vested immediately from the moment of the death of the causante or
predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777), and 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. The effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to what is
ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir, but the aleatory character of the
contract does not affect the validity of the transaction.
FACTS:
1. Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa Tangco on 6
October 1940, filed a petition for the probate of her will which was
docketed as Special Proceeding No. R-7866 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated on 2 April 1941. In
1946, Francisco de Borja was appointed executor and administrator: in
1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-administrator. When
Francisco died, on 14 April 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of
the testate estate of his mother, Josefa Tangco.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. On October 12, 1963, a compromise agreement was entered into
between the heir and son of Francisco (Jose) and the heir and surviving
spouse of Francisco by his second marriage (Tasiana) to put an end to
all these litigations.
 5. Jose de Borja submitted for Court approval the agreement of 12
October 1963 to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, 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.
6. The Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva
Ecija court declared it void and unenforceable.
7. Tasiana appealed the Rizal Court's order of approval (now Supreme
Court G.R. case No. L-28040), while Jose appealed the order of
disapproval (G.R. case No. L-28568) by the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija.
8. The Rizal CFI approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva Ecija
CFI declared it void and unenforceable.
9. The genuineness and due execution of the compromised agreement of
12 October 1963 is not disputed, but its validity is, nevertheless,
attacked by Tasiana Ongsingco on the ground that: (1) the heirs cannot
enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the will of
Francisco de Borja; (2) that the same involves a compromise on the
validity of the marriage between Francisco de Borja and Tasiana
Ongsingco; and (3) that even if it were valid, it has ceased to have force
and effect.
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the compromise agreement is valid despite the fact that it has not
yet been probated – YES.
RULING: 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.
RATIO:
1. In assailing the validity of the agreement, 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.
2. However, the ruling in the Guevara case is not applicable in this case,
as there was no attempt to settle or distribute the estate of Francisco
among the heirs before the probate of his will. The object of the
compromise agreement was merely the conveyance by Tasiana of any
and all her individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in the
estate of Francisco and Josefa.
3. A hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested
immediately from the moment of the death of such causante or
predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777). There is
no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of
her or his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the actual
extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the
estate.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 authority of res
judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a
judicial compromise. 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.
7. Thus, the CFI-Rizal acted in accordance with law and its order should
 be upheld, while the CFI-Nueva Ecija’s resolution should be reversed.

RELEVANT LAWS/Doctrines:
1. Article 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment
of the death of the decedent.
2. Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res
judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a
judicial compromise. 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.