De Borja v. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 Digest

39
DE BORJA vs. DE BORJA

G.R. No. L-28040; G.R. No L-28568; G.R. No. L-28611
August 18, 1972
REYES, J.B.L., J
Decedent/Testator: Josefa Tangco, died on October 6, 1940; Francisco de Borja, died on April 14, 1954
Type of Succession: Testate
Proponents & Oppositors:
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 August 18, 1972
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 August 18, 1972
TASIANA 0. VDA. 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.
I. Facts:
Francisco de Borja filed a petition for the probate of the will of his wife Josefa Tangco who died on October
6, 1940 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated on April 2, 1941. In 1946, Francisco
de Borja was appointed executor and administrator and in 1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-
administrator.
When Francisco died on April 14, 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of the testate estate of his mother,
Josefa Tangco. Upon Francisco's death, Tasiana his second wife instituted testate proceedings in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, where, in 1955, she was appointed special administratrix.
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. In order to put an end to all these litigations, they
entered a compromise agreement on October 12, 1963 which includes the condition of selling the Poblacion portion
of the Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala, Rizal and that Jose de Borja obligates himself to pay Tasiana Ongsingco
Vda. de de Borja the total amount of P800,000. They also agree that they mutually withdraw, release and discharge
any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, claims and demands, in law or in equity,
which they ever had, or now have or may have against each other. Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon receipt
of the payment, shall deliver to the heir Jose de Borja all the papers, titles and documents belonging to Francisco de
Borja which are in her possession.
On May 16, 1966, Jose de Borja submitted their compromise agreement to the Court of First Instance of
Rizal and on August 8, 1966, 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. 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. Tasiana Ongsingco argued that the heirs cannot enter
into such kind of agreement without first probating the will of Francisco de Borja.
Issue: Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been
probated. (Yes)
II. 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.
III. Ratio Decidendi:
Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this Court's decision in Guevara vs.
Guevara. 74 Phil. 479, wherein 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.
She also argued 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 which bars the validity of the agreement.
Upon the other hand, Jose de Borja stresses that at the time it was entered into, on October 12, 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.
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 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) there is no legal bar to
a successor 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.
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 of the present Civil Code. Her successional interest existed
independent of Francisco de Borja's last will and testament and would exist even if such will were not probated. 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 agreement was entered into between Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of
the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, the heir and 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 authority of res judicata; but there shall be no
execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.
The Court 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.
IV. Doctrine/Principle:
Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Successional interest existed independent of the last will and testament and would exist even if such will
were not probated at all.
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.
Digested by: Abie dela Cruz

De Borja v. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Borja v. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Borja v. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

39

DE BORJA vs. DE BORJA

G.R. No. L-28040 August 18, 1972

TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO, JOSE DE BORJA, administrator-appellee;

G.R. No L-28568 August 18, 1972

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO DE BORJA, TASIANA O. VDA. DE DE

G.R. No. L-28611 August 18, 1972

III. Ratio Decidendi:

Digested by: Abie dela Cruz

You might also like