DE BORJA v.

DE BORJA
ARTS. 1041-1057: ACCEPTANCE OF THE INHERITANCE"

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 v. TASIANA VDA. DE DE
BORJA, Special Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja
G.R. No. L-28040 August 18, 1972

“…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…”

FACTS: Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa Tangco on 6 October 1940, filed
a petition for the probate of her will. The will was probated and Francisco de Borja was
appointed executor and administrator: in 1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-
administrator. When Francisco died, Jose became the sole administrator of the testate estate of
his mother.

While a widower Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto himself a second wife, Tasiana
Ongsingco. Upon Francisco’s death, Tasiana instituted testate proceedings where in she was
appointed special administratrix.

A compromise agreement was entered into on 12 October 1963, 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.

On 16 May 1968, Jose de Borja submitted for Court approval the agreement 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
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 while administrator
Jose de Borja appealed the order of disapproval.

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, Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva
Ecija rely on this Court’s decision in Guevara vs. Guevara, wherein the Court’s majority held the
view that the presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and that the settlement and
DE BORJA v. DE BORJA
ARTS. 1041-1057: ACCEPTANCE OF THE INHERITANCE"

distribution of an estate on the basis of intestacy when the decedent left a will, is against the law
and public policy.

ISSUE: Whether or not the compromise agreement entered by Francisco and Tasiana is valid

RULING: The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara, ante, is not applicable to the case 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 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.

In this connection that as the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was
his compulsory heir under article 995 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.

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 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.