De Borja vs Vda de de Borja Digest

De Borja vs. Vda. de Borja 46 SCRA 577 FACTS This case is compilation of three cases including: CASE A : G.R. No. L-28040 – L-28040 – appeal  appeal by Tasiana Vda. de de Borja from a p p r o v a l     of compromise agreement by CFI  of

Rizal CASE B  : G.R. No L-28568 – L-28568 – appeal  appeal Jose de Borja from the d i s a p p r o v a l    of compromise agreement by CFI Nueva  of

Ecija CASE C  : G.R. No. L-28611 – L-28611 – appeal  appeal by Jose de Borja from the decision of CFI Rizal that the main object of the

compromise agreement is a separate and exclusive exclusive property of Francisco de Borja and not a conjugal asset

Family Tree

Francisco de Borja

#1 Josefa Tangco

Jose de Borja

Cayetano de Borja

Matilde de Borja

#2 Tasiana Vda. de de Borja

Crisanto de Borja

Francisco de Borja filed a petition for the probate of the will of her wife Josefa Tangco upon her death (CFI Rizal). He was appointed executor and administrator while Jose de Borja (their son) was appointed co-administrator. When Francisco died, Jose became sole administrator administrator Francisco had taken a 2nd wife Tasiana before he died and she instituted testate proceedings proceedings with the CFI of Nueva Ecija upon his death and was appointed special administatrix. The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has been plagued with several court suits and counter-suits . Thus, Jose and Tasiana entered into a compromise agreement to put an end to all of the pending litigations.

However, Tasiana argues that compromise agreement was not valid, because the heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the will of Francisco, and at the time the agreement was made, the will was still being probated with the CFI of Nueva Ecija.

ISSUE W/N the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been probated.

RULING COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VALID 

Doctrine in Guevara vs. Guevara: “ 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. ” – NOT – NOT APPLICABLE o

o

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.

o

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 imm ediately from the mom ent of the death of  3 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.

 

o

o

Tasiana was Francisco’s compulsory heir and 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. Case A: affirmed  Case B: reversed 



Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) should be declared property of the conjugal partnership of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco 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.

o

 

o

o

o

Reasons: 

Witness’s testimony considered hearsay and inadmissible



Francisco’s testimony does not refer precisely to the Hacienda in question

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. CASE C: reversed