TodayisSunday,February05,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L41171July23,1987

INTESTATEESTATEOFTHELATEVITOBORROMEO,PATROCINIOBORROMEOHERRERA,petitioner,
vs.
FORTUNATOBORROMEOandHON.FRANCISCOP.BURGOS,JudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Cebu,BranchII,respondents.

xx

No.L55000July23,1987

INTHEMATTEROFTHEESTATEOFVITOBORROMEO,DECEASED,PILARN.BORROMEO,MARIAB.
PUTONG,FEDERICOV.BORROMEO,JOSEBORROMEO,CONSUELOB.MORALES,ANDCANUTOV.
BORROMEO,JR.,heirsappellants,
vs.
FORTUNATOBORROMEO,claimantappellee.

xx

No.L62895July23,1987

JOSECUENCOBORROMEO,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,HON.FRANCISCOP.BURGOS,AspresidingJudgeofthe(now)
RegionalTrialCourt,BranchXV,RegionVII,RICARDOV.REYES,asAdministratoroftheEstateofVito
BorromeoinSp.Proc.No.916R,NUMERIANOG.ESTENZOandDOMINGOL.ANTIGUA,respondents.

xx

No.L63818July23,1987

DOMINGOANTIGUAANDRICARDOV.REYES,asAdministratoroftheIntestateEstateofVITO
BORROMEO,Sp.ProceedingsNo.916R,RegionalTrialCourtofCebu,joinedbyHON.JUDGE
FRANCISCOP.BURGOS,asPresidingJudgeofBranchXVoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,asa
formalparty,andATTYS.FRANCISM.ZOSA,GAUDIOSORUIZandNUMERIANOESTENZO,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEINTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT,JOSECUENCOBORROMEO,andPETRAO.
BORROMEO,respondents.

xx

No.L65995July23,1987

PETRABORROMEO,VITALIANABORROMEO,AMELINDABORROMEO,andJOSECUENCOBORROMEO,
petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEFRANCISCOP.BURGOS,PresidingJudgeofBranchXV,RegionalTrialCourtofCebu
RICARDOV.REYES,AdministratoroftheEstateofVITOBORROMEOinSp.Proc.No.916Rand
DOMINGOL.ANTIGUA,respondents.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:

ThesecasesbeforeusallstemfromSP.PROC.NO.916RofthethenCourtofFirstInstanceofCebu.
G.R.No.41171

VitoBorromeo,awidowerandpermanentresidentofCebuCity,diedonMarch13,1952,inParanaque,Rizalat
theageof88years,withoutforcedheirsbutleavingextensivepropertiesintheprovinceofCebu.

OnApril19,1952,JoseJunquerafiledwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofCebuapetitionfortheprobateofaone
page document as the last will and testament left by the said deceased, devising all his properties to Tomas,
Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed Borromeo, in equal and undivided shares, and designating Junquera as
executorthereof.ThecasewasdocketedasSpecialProceedingsNo.916R.Thedocument,draftedinSpanish,
was allegedly signed and thumbmarked by the deceased in the presence of Cornelio Gandionco, Eusebio
Cabiluna,andFelixbertoLeonardowhoactedaswitnesses.

Oppositionstotheprobateofthewillwerefiled.OnMay28,1960,afterduetrial,theprobatecourtheldthatthe
documentpresentedasthewillofthedeceasedwasaforgery.

On appeal to this Court, the decision of the probate court disallowing the probate of the will was affirmed in
TestateEstateofVitoBorromeo,JoseH.Junqueraetal.v.CrispinBorromeoetal.(19SCRA656).

Thetestateproceedingswasconvertedintoanintestateproceedings.Severalpartiescamebeforethecourtfiling
claimsorpetitionsallegingthemselvesasheirsoftheintestateestateofVitoBorromeo.

Thefollowingpetitionsorclaimswerefiled:

1. On August 29, 1967, the heirs of Jose Ma. Borromeo and Cosme Borromeo filed a petition for
declarationofheirsanddeterminationofheirship.Therewasnooppositionfiledagainstsaidpetition.

2.OnNovember26,1967,VitalianaBorromeoalsofiledapetitionfordeclarationasheir.TheheirsofJose
Ma.BorromeoandCosmeBorromeofiledanoppositiontothispetition.

3. On December 13, 1967, Jose Barcenilla, Jr., Anecita Ocampo de Castro, Ramon Ocampo, Lourdes
Ocampo, Elena Ocampo, Isagani Morre, Rosario Morre, Aurora Morre, Lila Morre, Lamberto Morre, and
Patricia Morre, filed a petition for declaration of heirs and determination of shares. The petition was
opposedbytheheirsofJoseandCosmeBorromeo.

4. On December 2, 1968, Maria Borromeo Atega, Luz Borromeo, Hermenegilda Borromeo Nonnenkamp,
Rosario Borromeo, and Fe Borromeo Queroz filed a claim. Jose Cuenco Borromeo, Crispin Borromeo,
VitalianaBorromeoandtheheirsofCarlosBorromeorepresentedbyJoseTalamfiledoppositionstothis
claim.

Whentheaforementionedpetitionsandclaimswereheardjointly,thefollowingfactswereestablished:

1. Maximo Borromeo and Hermenegilda Galan, husband and wife (the latter having predeceased the former),
weresurvivedbytheireight(8)children,namely,

JoseMa.Borromeo

CosmeBorromeo

PantaleonBorromeo

VitoBorromeo

PauloBorromeo

AnecitaBorromeo

QuirinoBorromeoand

JulianBorromeo

2. Vito Borromeo died a widower on March 13, 1952, without any issue, and all his brothers and sisters
predeceasedhim.

3.Vito'sbrotherPantaleonBorromeodiedleavingthefollowingchildren:

a.IsmaelaBorromeo,whodiedonOct.16,1939

b. Teofilo Borromeo, who died on Aug. 1, 1955, or 3 years after the death of Vito Borromeo. He was
married to Remedios Cuenco Borromeo, who died on March 28, 1968. He had an only sonAtty. Jose
 CuencoBorromeooneofthepetitionersherein.

c.CrispinBorromeo,whoisstillalive.

4. Anecita Borromeo, sister of Vito Borromeo, died ahead of him and left an only daughter, Aurora B. Ocampo,
whodiedonJan.30,1950leavingthefollowingchildren:

a.AnecitaOcampoCastro

b.RamonOcampo

c.LourdesOcampo

d.ElenaOcampo,allliving,and

e.AntonietaOcampoBarcenilla(deceased),survivedbyclaimantJoseBarcenilla,Jr.

5.CosmeBorromeo,anotherbrotherofVitoBorromeo,diedbeforethewarandleftthefollowingchildren:

a.MarcialBorromeo

b.CarlosBorromeo,whodiedonJan.18,1965,survivedbyhiswife,RemediosAlfonso,andhisonly
daughter,AmelindaBorromeoTalam

c.AsuncionBorromeo

d.FlorentinaBorromeo,whodiedin1948.

e.AmilioBorromeo,whodiedin1944.

f.CarmenBorromeo,whodiedin1925.

Thelastthreediedleavingnoissue.

6.JoseMa.Borromeo,anotherbrotherofVitoBorromeo,diedbeforethewarandleftthefollowingchildren:

a.ExequielBorromeo,whodiedonDecember29,1949

b.CanutoBorromeo,whodiedonDec.31,1959,leavingthefollowingchildren:

aa.FedericoBorromeo

bb.MarisolBorromeo(MariaB.Putong,Rec.p.85)

cc.CanutoBorromeo,Jr.

dd.JoseBorromeo

ee.ConsueloBorromeo

ff.PilarBorromeo

gg.SaludBorromeo

hh.PatrocinioBorromeoHerrera

c.MaximoBorromeo,whodiedinJuly,1948

d.MatildeBorromeo,whodiedonAug.6,1946

e.AndresBorromeo,whodiedonJan.3,1923,butsurvivedbyhischildren:

aa.MariaBorromeoAtega

bb.LuzBorromeo

cc.HermenegildaBorromeoNonnenkamp

dd.RosarioBorromeo
 ee.FeBorromeoQueroz

OnApril10,1969,thetrialcourt,invokingArt.972oftheCivilCode,issuedanorderdeclaringthefollowing,tothe
exclusionofallothers,astheintestateheirsofthedeceasedVitoBorromeo:

1.JoseCuencoBorromeo

2.JudgeCrispinBorromeo

3.VitalianaBorromeo

4.PatrocinioBorromeoHerrera

5.SaludBorromeo

6.AsuncionBorromeo

7.MarcialBorromeo

8.AmelindaBorromeodeTalam,and

9.TheheirsofCanutoBorromeo

ThecourtalsoorderedthattheassetsoftheintestateestateofVitoBorromeoshallbedividedinto4/9and5/9
groupsanddistributedinequalandequitablesharesamongthe9abovenameddeclaredintestateheirs.

OnApril21and30,1969,thedeclaredheirs,withtheexceptionofPatrocinioB.Herrera,signedanagreementof
partition of the properties of the deceased Vito Borromeo which was approved by the trial court, in its order of
August15,1969.Inthissameorder,thetrialcourtorderedtheadministrator,AttyJesusGaboya,Jr.,topartition
thepropertiesofthedeceasedinthewayandmannertheyaredividedandpartitionedinthesaidAgreementof
Partitionandfurtherorderedthat40%ofthemarketvalueofthe4/9and5/9oftheestateshallbesegregated.All
attorney'sfeesshallbetakenandpaidfromthissegregatedportion.

OnAugust25,1972,respondentFortunatoBorromeo,whohadearlierclaimedasheirundertheforgedwill,filed
a motion before the trial court praying that he be declared as one of the heirs of the deceased Vito Borromeo,
allegingthatheisanillegitimatesonofthedeceasedandthatinthedeclarationofheirsmadebythetrialcourt,
hewasomitted,indisregardofthelawmakinghimaforcedheirentitledtoreceivealegitimelikeallotherforced
heirs. As an acknowledged illegitimate child, he stated that he was entitled to a legitime equal in every case to
fourfifthsofthelegitimeofanacknowledgednaturalchild.

FindingthatthemotionofFortunatoBorromeowasalreadybarredbytheorderofthecourtdatedApril12,1969
declaringthepersonsnamedthereinasthelegalheirsofthedeceasedVitoBorromeo,thecourtdismissedthe
motiononJune25,1973.

FortunatoBorromeofiledamotionforreconsideration.Inthememorandumhesubmittedtosupporthismotion
for reconsideration, Fortunato changed the basis for his claim to a portion of the estate. He asserted and
incorporatedaWaiverofHereditaryRightsdatedJuly31,1967,supposedlysignedbyPilarN.Borromeo,Maria
B. Putong, Jose Borromeo, Canuto V. Borromeo, Jr., Salud Borromeo, Patrocinio BorromeoHerrera, Marcial
Borromeo,AsuncionBorromeo,FedericoV.Borromeo,ConsueloB.Morales,RemediosAlfonsoandAmelindaB.
Talam In the waiver, five of the nine heirs relinquished to Fortunato their shares in the disputed estate. The
motion was opposed on the ground that the trial court, acting as a probate court, had no jurisdiction to take
cognizanceoftheclaimthatrespondentFortunatoBorromeoisestoppedfromassertingthewaiveragreement
thatthewaiveragreementisvoidasitwasexecutedbeforethedeclarationofheirsthatthesameisvoidhaving
been executed before the distribution of the estate and before the acceptance of the inheritance and that it is
voidabinitioandinexistentforlackofsubjectmatter.

OnDecember24,1974,afterduehearing,thetrialcourtconcludingthatthefivedeclaredheirswhosignedthe
waiveragreementassigningtheirhereditaryrightstoFortunatoBorromeohadlostthesamerights,declaredthe
latterasentitledto5/9oftheestateofVitoBorromeo.

AmotionforreconsiderationofthisorderwasdeniedonJuly7,1975.

In the present petition, the petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the trial court's order dated December 24,
1974, declaring respondent Fortunato Borromeo entitled to 5/9 of the estate of Vito Borromeo and the July 7,
1975order,denyingthemotionforreconsideration.

The petitioner argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the claim of respondent
Fortunato Borromeo because it is not a money claim against the decedent but a claim for properties, real and
personal,whichconstituteallofthesharesoftheheirsinthedecedent'sestate,heirswhoallegedlywaivedtheir
rightsinhisfavor.Theclaimoftheprivaterespondentunderthewaiveragreement,accordingtothepetitioner,
may be likened to that of a creditor of the heirs which is improper. He alleges that the claim of the private
respondentunderthewaiveragreementwasfiledbeyondthetimeallowedforfilingofclaimsasitwasfiledonly
sometimein1973,aftertherehadbeenadeclarationofheirs(April10,1969),anagreementofpartition(April30,
1969),theapprovaloftheagreementofpartitionandanorderdirectingtheadministratortopartitiontheestate
(August15,1969),wheninamerememorandum,theexistenceofthewaiveragreementwasbroughtout.

Itisfurtherarguedbythepetitionerthatthedocumententitled"waiverofHereditaryRights"executedonJuly31,
1967, aside from having been cancelled and revoked on June 29, 1968, by Tomas L. Borromeo, Fortunato
Borromeo and Amelia Borromeo, is without force and effect because there can be no effective waiver of
hereditaryrightsbeforetherehasbeenavalidacceptanceoftheinheritancetheheirsintendtotransfer.Pursuant
to Article 1043 of the Civil Code, to make acceptance or repudiation of inheritance valid, the person must be
certainofthedeathoftheonefromwhomheistoinheritandofhisrighttotheinheritance.Sincethepetitioner
andhercoheirswerenotcertainoftheirrighttotheinheritanceuntiltheyweredeclaredheirs,theirrightswere,
therefore, uncertain. This view, according to the petitioner, is also supported by Article 1057 of the same Code
which directs heirs, devicees, and legatees to signify their acceptance or repudiation within thirty days after the
courthasissuedanorderforthedistributionoftheestate.

RespondentFortunatoBorromeoontheotherhand,contendsthatunderArticle1043oftheCivilCodethereisno
needforapersontobefirstdeclaredasheirbeforehecanacceptorrepudiateaninheritance.Whatisrequired
isthathemustfirstbecertainofthedeathofthepersonfromwhomheistoinheritandthathemustbecertainof
hisrighttotheinheritance.HepointsoutthatatthetimeofthesigningofthewaiverdocumentonJuly31,1967,
thesignatoriestothewaiverdocumentwerecertainthatVitoBorromeowasalreadydeadaswellasoftheirrights
totheinheritanceasshowninthewaiverdocumentitself.

Withrespecttotheissueofjurisdictionofthetrialcourttopassuponthevalidityofthewaiverofhereditaryrights,
respondentBorromeoassertsthatsincethewaiverorrenunciationofhereditaryrightstookplaceafterthecourt
assumedjurisdictionoverthepropertiesoftheestateitpartakesofthenatureofapartitionofthepropertiesof
the estate needing approval of the court because it was executed in the course of the proceedings. lie further
maintainsthattheprobatecourtlosesjurisdictionoftheestateonlyafterthepaymentofallthedebtsoftheestate
andtheremainingestateisdistributedtothoseentitledtothesame.

The prevailing jurisprudence on waiver of hereditary rights is that "the properties included in an existing
inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third persons with respect to the heirs, who by fiction of law
continuethepersonalityoftheformer.Nordosuchpropertieshavethecharacteroffutureproperty,becausethe
heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of the death of the deceased, by principle established in
article657andappliedbyarticle661oftheCivilCode,accordingtowhichtheheirssucceedthedeceasedbythe
merefactofdeath.Moreorless,timemayelapsefromthemomentofthedeathofthedeceaseduntiltheheirs
enterintopossessionofthehereditaryproperty,buttheacceptanceinanyeventretroactstothemomentofthe
death, in accordance with article 989 of the Civil Code. The right is vested, although conditioned upon the
adjudication of the corresponding hereditary portion." (Osorio v. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co., 41 Phil.,
531).Theheirs,therefore,couldwaivetheirhereditaryrightsin1967eveniftheordertopartitiontheestatewas
issuedonlyin1969.

In this case, however, the purported "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" cannot be considered to be effective. For a
waiver to exist, three elements are essential: (1) the existence of a right (2) the knowledge of the existence
thereofand(3)anintentiontorelinquishsuchright.(Peoplev.Salvador,(CA)53O.G.No.22,p.8116,8120).
Theintentiontowaivearightoradvantagemustbeshownclearlyandconvincingly,andwhentheonlyproofof
intentionrestsinwhatapartydoes,hisactshouldbesomanifestlyconsistentwith,andindicativeofanintentto,
voluntarily relinquish the particular right or advantage that no other reasonable explanation of his conduct is
possible(67C.J.,311).(Fernandezv.Sebido,etal.,70Phil.,151,159).

The circumstances of this case show that the signatories to the waiver document did not have the clear and
convincing intention to relinquish their rights, Thus: (1) On October 27, 1967. Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia
Borromeofiledapleadingentitled"Compliance"whereintheysubmittedaproposalfortheamicablesettlementof
the case. In that Compliance, they proposed to concede to all the eight (8) intestate heirs of Vito Borromeo all
properties,personalandreal,includingallcashandsumsofmoneyinthehandsoftheSpecialAdministrator,as
ofOctober31,1967,notcontestedorclaimedbytheminanyactionthenpendingintheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Cebu. In turn, the heirs would waive and concede to them all the 14 contested lots. In this document, the
respondentrecognizesandconcedesthatthepetitioner,liketheothersignatoriestothewaiverdocument,isan
heir of the deceased Vito Borromeo, entitled to share in the estate. This shows that the "Waiver of Hereditary
Rights"wasnevermeanttobewhattherespondentnowpurportsittobe.Hadtheintentbeenotherwise,there
wouldnotbeanyreasonforFortunato,Tomas,andAmeliaBorromeotomentiontheheirsintheoffertosettlethe
caseamicably,andoffertoconcedetothempartsoftheestateofthedeceased(2)OnApril21and30,1969,
the majority of the declared heirs executed an Agreement on how the estate they inherited shall be distributed.
This Agreement of Partition was approved by the trial court on August 15, 1969 (3) On June 29, 1968, the
petitioner, among others, signed a document entitled Deed of Assignment" purporting to transfer and assign in
favor of the respondent and Tomas and Amelia Borromeo all her (Patrocinio B. Herrera's) rights, interests, and
participationasanintestateheirintheestateofthedeceasedVitoBorromeo.Thestatedconsiderationforsaid
assignment was P100,000.00 (4) On the same date, June 29, 1968, the respondent Tomas, and Amelia
Borromeo(assigneesintheaforementioneddeedofassignment)inturnexecuteda"DeedofReconveyance"in
favoroftheheirsassignorsnamedinthesamedeedofassignment.ThestatedconsiderationwasP50,000.00
(5) A Cancellation of Deed of Assignment and Deed of Reconveyance was signed by Tomas Borromeo and
AmeliaBorromeoonOctober15,1968,whileFortunatoBorromeosignedthisdocumentonMarch24,1969.

Withrespecttotheissueofjurisdiction,weholdthatthetrialcourthadjurisdictiontopassuponthevalidityofthe
waiveragreement.ItmustbenotedthatinSpecialProceedingsNo.916Rthelowercourtdisallowedtheprobate
ofthewillanddeclareditasfake.Uponappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthedecisionofthelowercourtonMarch30,
1967, in G.R. No. L18498. Subsequently, several parties came before the lower court filing claims or petitions
allegingthemselvesasheirsoftheintestateestateofVitoBorromeo.Weseenoimpedimenttothetrialcourtin
exercisingjurisdictionandtryingthesaidclaimsorpetitions.Moreover,thejurisdictionofthetrialcourtextendsto
mattersincidentalandcollateraltotheexerciseofitsrecognizedpowersinhandlingthesettlementoftheestate.

Inviewoftheforegoing,thequestionedorderofthetrialcourtdatedDecember24,1974,isherebySETASIDE.

G.R.No.55000

ThiscasewasoriginallyanappealtotheCourtofAppealsfromanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,
Branch11,datedDecember24,1974,declaringthewaiverdocumentearlierdiscussedinG.R.No.41171valid.
TheappellatecourtcertifiedthiscasetothisCourtasthequestionsraisedarealloflaw.

The appellants not only assail the validity of the waiver agreement but they also question the jurisdiction of the
lowercourttohearanddecidetheactionfiledbyclaimantFortunatoBorromeo.

TheappellantsarguethatwhenthewaiverofhereditaryrightwasexecutedonJuly31,1967,PilarBorromeoand
herchildrendidnotyetpossessorownanyhereditaryrightintheintestateestateofthedeceasedVitoBorromeo
because said hereditary right was only acquired and owned by them on April 10, 1969, when the estate was
ordereddistributed.

They further argue that in contemplation of law, there is no such contract of waiver of hereditary right in the
present case because there was no object, which is hereditary right, that could be the subject matter of said
waiver,and,therefore,saidwaiverofhereditaryrightwasnotonlynullandvoidabinitiobutwasinexistent.

With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, the appellants contend that without any formal pleading filed by the
lawyers of Fortunato Borromeo for the approval of the waiver agreement and without notice to the parties
concerned,twothingswhicharenecessarysothatthelowercourtwouldbevestedwithauthorityandjurisdiction
to hear and decide the validity of said waiver agreement, nevertheless, the lower court set the hearing on
September25,1973andwithoutaskingfortherequisitepleading.Thisresultedintheissuanceoftheappealed
orderofDecember24,1974,whichapprovedthevalidityofthewaiveragreement.Theappellantscontendthat
thisconstitutesanerrorintheexerciseofjurisdiction.

Theappelleeontheotherhand,maintainsthatbywaivingtheirhereditaryrightsinfavorofFortunatoBorromeo,
thesignatoriestothewaiverdocumenttacitlyandirrevocablyacceptedtheinheritanceandbyvirtueofthesame
act,theylosttheirrightsbecausetherightsfromthatmomentonbecamevestedinFortunatoBorromeo.

It is also argued by the appellee that under Article 1043 of the Civil Code there is no need for a person to be
declaredasheirfirstbeforehecanacceptorrepudiateaninheritance.Whatisrequiredisthatheiscertainofthe
deathofthepersonfromwhomheistoinherit,andofhisrighttotheinheritance.Atthetimeofthesigningofthe
waiverdocumentonJuly31,1967,thesignatoriestothewaiverdocumentwerecertainthatVitoBorromeowas
alreadydeadandtheywerealsocertainoftheirrighttotheinheritanceasshownbythewaiverdocumentitself.

Ontheallegationoftheappellantsthatthelowercourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionovertheclaimbecauseofthe
alleged lack of a pleading invoking its jurisdiction to decide the claim, the appellee asserts that on August 23,
1973,thelowercourtissuedanorderspecificallycallingonalloppositorstothewaiverdocumenttosubmittheir
comments within ten days from notice and setting the same for hearing on September 25, 1973. The appellee
also avers that the claim as to a 5/9 share in the inheritance involves no question of title to property and,
therefore,theprobatecourtcandecidethequestion.

TheissuesinthiscasearesimilartotheissuesraisedinG.R.No.41171.Theappellantsinthiscase,whoareall
declaredheirsofthelateVitoBorromeoarecontestingthevalidityofthetrialcourt'sorderdatedDecember24,
1974,declaringFortunatoBorromeoentitledto5/9oftheestateofVitoBorromeounderthewaiveragreement.
As stated in G.R. No. 41171, the supposed waiver of hereditary rights can not be validated. The essential
elementsofawaiver,especiallytheclearandconvincingintentiontorelinquishhereditaryrights,arenotfoundin
thiscase.

The October 27, 1967 proposal for an amicable settlement conceding to all the eight (8) intestate heirs various
properties in consideration for the heirs giving to the respondent and to Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo the
fourteen (14) contested lots was filed inspite of the fact that on July 31, 1967, some of the heirs had allegedly
alreadywaivedorsoldtheirhereditaryrightstotherespondent.

The agreement on how the estate is to be distributed, the June 29, 1968 deed of assignment, the deed of
reconveyance,andthesubsequentcancellationofthedeedofassignmentanddeedofreconveyanceallargue
againstthepurportedwaiverofhereditaryrights.

Concerning the issue of jurisdiction, we have already stated in G.R. No. 41171 that the trial court acquired
jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the waiver agreement because the trial court's jurisdiction extends to
mattersincidentalandcollateraltotheexerciseofitsrecognizedpowersinhandlingthesettlementoftheestate.

Thequestionedorderis,therefore,SETASIDE.

G.R.No.62895

A motion dated April 28, 1972, was filed by Atty. Raul M. Sesbreno, representative of some of the heirs
distributees,prayingfortheimmediateclosureofSpecialProceedingNo.916R.AsimilarmotiondatedMay29,
1979wasfiledbyAtty.JoseAmadora.Bothmotionsweregroundedonthefactthattherewasnothingmoretobe
done after the payment of all the obligations of the estate since the order of partition and distribution had long
becomefinal.

AllegingthatrespondentJudgeFranciscoP.Burgosfailedorrefusedtoresolvetheaforesaidmotions,petitioner
Jose Cuenco Borromeofiled a petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals to compel the respondent
judgetoterminateandcloseSpecialProceedingsNo.916R.

Finding that the inaction of the respondent judge was due to pending motions to compel the petitioner, as co
administrator, to submit an inventory of the real properties of the estate and an accounting of the cash in his
hands, pending claims for attorney's fees, and that mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a
discretionary function, the appellate court denied the petition on May 14, 1982. The petitioner's motion for
reconsiderationwaslikewisedeniedforlackofmerit.Hence,thispetition.

The petitioner's stand is that the inaction of the respondent judge on the motion filed on April 28, 1972 for the
closureoftheadministrationproceedingcannotbejustifiedbythefilingofthemotionforinventoryandaccounting
becausethelattermotionwasfiledonlyonMarch2,1979.HeclaimedthatunderthethenConstitution,itisthe
duty of the respondent judge to decide or resolve a case or matter within three months from the date of its
submission.

The respondents contend that the motion to close the administration had already been resolved when the
respondentjudgecancelledallsettingsofallincidentspreviouslysetinhiscourtinanorderdatedJune4,1979,
pursuanttotheresolutionandrestrainingorderissuedbytheCourtofAppealsenjoininghimtomaintainstatus
quoonthecase.

As stated in G.R. No. 41171, on April 21 and 30, 1969, the declared heirs, with the exception of Patrocinio B.
Herrera,signedanagreementofpartitionofthepropertiesofthedeceasedVitoBorromeowhichwasapproved
bythetrialcourt,initsorderdatedAugust15,1969.Inthissameorder,thetrialcourtorderedtheadministrator,
Atty.JesusGaboya,Jr.,topartitionthepropertiesofthedeceasedinthewayandmannertheyaredividedand
partitionedinthesaidAgreementofPartitionandfurtherorderedthat40%ofthemarketvalueofthe4/9and5/9
oftheestateshallbesegregatedandreservedforattorney'sfees.

AccordingtothemanifestationofJudgeFranciscoBurgosdatedJuly5,1982,(p.197,Rollo,G.R.No.41171)his
courthasnotfinallydistributedtothenine(9)declaredheirsthepropertiesduetothefollowingcircumstances:

1.Thecourt'sdeterminationofthemarketvalueoftheestateinordertosegregatethe40%reservedfor
attorney'sfees

2.TheorderofDecember24,1974,declaringFortunatoBorromeoasbeneficiaryofthe5/9oftheestate
because of the waiver agreement signed by the heirs representing the 5/9 group which is still pending
resolutionbythisCourt(G.R.No.41171)

3.TherefusalofadministratorJoseCuencoBorromeotorenderhisaccountingand
 4.TheclaimofMarcelaVillegasfor1/2oftheestatecausingannotationsofnoticesoflispendensonthe
differenttitlesofthepropertiesoftheestate.

Since there are still real properties of the estate that were not vet distributed to some of the declared heirs,
particularly the 5/9 group of heirs due to the pending resolution of the waiver agreement, this Court in its
resolutionofJune15,1983,requiredthejudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,Branch11,toexpeditethe
determination of Special Proceedings No. 916R and ordered the coadministrator Jose Cuenco Borromeo to
submit an inventory of real properties of the estate and to render an accounting of cash and bank deposits
realizedfromrentsofseveralproperties.

Thematterofattorney'sfeesshallbediscussedinG.R.No.65995.

Consideringthepronouncementsstatedin:

1.G.R.No.41171&G.R.No.55000,settingasidetheOrderofthetrialcourtdatedDecember24,1974

2. G.R. No. 63818, denying the petition for review seeking to modify the decision of the Intermediate
Appellate Court insofar as it disqualifies and inhibits Judge Francisco P. Burgos from further hearing the
Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo and ordering the remand of the case to the Executive,Judge of the
RegionaltrialCourtofCebuforrerafflingand

3. G.R. No. 65995, granting the petition to restrain the respondents from further acting on any and all
incidentsinSpecialproceedingsNo.91611becauseoftheaffirmationofthedecisionoftheIntermediate
AppellateCourtinG.R.No.63818.

the trial court may now terminate and close Special Proceedings No. 916R, subject to the submission of an
inventoryoftherealpropertiesoftheestateandanaccountingofthecallandbankdepositsofthepetitioner,as
coadministratoroftheestate,ifhehasnotvetdoneso,asrequiredbythisCourtinitsResolutiondatedJune15,
1983.Thismustbeeffectedwithalldeliberatespeed.

G.R.No.63818

OnJune9,1979,respondentsJoseCuencoBorromeoandPetra0.Borromeofiledamotionforinhibitioninthe
CourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,Branch11,presidedoverbyJudgeFranciscoP.Burgostoinhibitthejudgefrom
furtheractinginSpecialProceedingsNo.916R.'Themovantsalleged,amongothers,thefollowing:

xxxxxxxxx

6.Tokeeptheagitationtosellmoving,Atty.Antiguafiledamotionfortheproductionofthecertificatesof
title and to deposit the same with the Branch Clerk of Court, presumably for the ready inspection of
interested buyers. Said motion was granted by the Hon. Court in its order of October 2, 1978 which,
however,becamethesubjectofvariousmotionsforreconsiderationfromheirsdistributeeswhocontended
thatasownerstheycannotbedeprivedoftheirtitlesfortheflimsyreasonsadvancedbyAtty,Antigua.In
viewofthemotionsforreconsideration,AttyAntiguaultimatelywithdrawhismotionsforproductionoftitles.

7. The incident concerning the production of titles triggered another incident involving Atty. Raul H.
Sesbreno who was then the counsel of herein movants Petra O. Borromeo and Amelinda B. Talam In
connectionwithsaidincident,Atty.Sesbrenofiledapleadingwhichthetion.presiding,JudgeConsidered
directcontemptbecauseamongothers,Atty.SesbrenoinsinuatedthattheHon.PresidingJudgestandsto
receive "fat commission" from the sale of the entire property. Indeed, Atty. Sesbreno was seriously in
dangerofbeingdeclaredincontemptofcourtwiththedimprospectofsuspensionfromthepracticeofhis
profession.Butobviouslytoextricatehimselffromtheprospectofcontemptandsuspension.Atty.Sesbreno
chose rapproachment and ultimately joined forces with Atty. Antigua, et al., who, together, continued to
harassadministrator

xxxxxxxxx

9. The herein movants are informed and so they allege, that a brother of the Hon. Presiding Judge is
marriedtoasisterofAtty.DomingoL.Antigua.

10.ThereisnowacleartugofwarbetweenAtty.Antigua,etal.whoareagitatingforthesaleoftheentire
estateortobuyouttheindividualheirs,ontheonehand,andthehereinmovants,ontheother,whoare
notwillingtoselltheirdistributivesharesunderthetermsandconditionspresentlyproposed.Inthistugof
war, a pattern of harassment has become apparent against the herein movants, especially Jose Cuenco
Borromeo. Among the harassments employed by Atty Antigua et al. are the pending motions for the
removal of administrator Jose Cuenco Borromeo, the subpoena duces tecum issued to the bank which
seekstoinvadeintotheprivacyofthepersonalaccountofJoseCuencoBorromeo,andtheothermatters
mentioned in paragraph 8 hereof. More harassment motions are expected until the herein movants shall
 finally yield to the proposed sale. In such a situation, the herein movants beg for an entirely independent
andimpartialjudgetopassuponthemeritsofsaidincidents.

11.ShouldtheHon.PresidingJudgecontinuetositandtakecognizanceofthisproceeding,includingthe
incidentsabovementioned,heisliabletobemisunderstoodasbeingbiasedinfavorofAttyAntigua,etal.
and prejudiced against the herein movants. Incidents which may create this impression need not be
enumeratedherein.(pp.3941,Rollo)

ThemotionforinhibitionwasdeniedbyJudgeFranciscoP.Burgos.Theirmotionforreconsiderationhavingbeen
denied, the private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with preliminary injunction before
theIntermediateAppellateCourt.

Intheappellatecourt,theprivaterespondentsalleged,amongothers,thefollowing:

xxxxxxxxx

16. With all due respect, petitioners regret the necessity of having to state herein that respondent Hon.
FranciscoP.BurgoshasshownundueinterestinpursingthesaleinitiatedbyAtty.DomingoL.Antigua,et
al.Significantly,abrotherofrespondentHon.FranciscoP.BurgosismarriedtoasisterofAtty.DomingoL.
Antigua.

17. Evidence the proposed sale of the entire properties of the estate cannot be legally done without the
conformity of the heirsdistributees because the certificates of title are already registered in their names
Hence,inpursuitoftheagitationtosell,respondentHon.FranciscoP.Burgosurgedtheheirsdistributees
to sell the entire property based on the rationale that proceeds thereof deposited in the bank will earn
interestmorethanthepresentincomeofthesocalledestate.Mostoftheheirsdistributees,however.have
beenpetitionertimidtosaytheirpiece.Onlythe4/9groupofheirsledbyJoseCuencoBorromeohavehad
the courage to stand up and refuse the proposal to sell clearly favored by respondent Hon. Francisco P.
Burgos.

xxxxxxxxx

20. Petitioners will refrain from discussing herein the merits of the shotgun motion of Atty. Domingo L.
Antiguaaswellasotherincidentsnowpendinginthecourtbelowwhichsmackofharassmentagainstthe
hereinpetitioners.For,regardlessofthemeritsofsaidincidents,petitionersrespectfullycontendthatitis
highlyimproperforrespondentHon.FranciscoP.BurgostocontinuetopresideoverSp.Proc.No.916R
byreasonofthefollowingcircumstances:

(a)HehasshownundueinterestinthesaleofthepropertiesasinitiatedbyAtty.DomingoL.Antigua
whosesisterismarriedtoabrotherofrespondent.

(b) The proposed sale cannot be legally done without the conformity of the heirsdistributees, and
petitionershaveopenlyrefusedthesale,tothegreatdisappointmentofrespondent.

(c) The shot gun motion of Atty. Antigua and similar incidents are clearly intended to harass and
embarrass administrator Jose Cuenco Borromeo in order to pressure him into acceding to the
proposedsale.

(d) Respondent has shown bias and prejudice against petitioners by failing to resolve the claim for
attorney'sfeesfiledbyJoseCuencoBorromeoandthelateCrispinBorromeo.Similarclaimsbythe
otherlawyerswereresolvedbyrespondentafterpetitionersrefusedtheproposedsale.(pp.4143,
Rollo)

OnMarch1,1983,theappellatecourtrendereditsdecisiongrantingthepetitionforcertiorariand/orprohibition
and disqualifying Judge Francisco P. Burgos from taking further cognizance of Special Proceedings No. 916R.
ThecourtalsoorderedthetransmissionoftherecordsofthecasetotheExecutiveJudgeoftheRegionalTrial
CourtofRegionVIIforreraffling.

A motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the appellate court on April 11, 1983. Hence, the
present petition for review seeking to modify the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court insofar as it
disqualifies and inhibits Judge Francisco P. Burgos from further hearing the case of Intestate Estate of Vito
BorromeoandorderstheremandofthecasetotheExecutiveJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebuforre
raffling.

TheprincipalissueinthiscasehasbecomemootandacademicbecauseJudgeFranciscoP.Burgosdecidedto
retirefromtheRegionalTrialCourtofCebusometimebeforethelatestreorganizationofthejudiciary.However,
wedecidethepetitiononitsmeritsfortheguidanceofthejudgetowhomthiscasewillbereassignedandothers
concerned.
The petitioners deny that respondent Jose Cuenco Borromeo has been harassed. They contend that Judge
BurgoshasbennshownunusualinterestintheproposedsaleoftheentireestateforP6,700,000.00infavorof
the buyers of Atty. Antigua. They claim that this disinterest is shown by the judge's order of March 2, 1979
assessingthepropertyoftheestateatP15,000,000.00.Theyaddthatheonlyorderedtheadministratortosellso
muchofthepropertiesoftheestatetopaytheattorney'sfeesofthelawyersclaimants.Tothem,theinhibitionof
JudgeBurgoswouldhavebeenunreasonablebecausehisordersagainstthefailureofJoseCuencoBorromeo,
asadministrator,togiveanaccountingandinventoryoftheestatewereallaffirmedbytheappellatecourt.They
claimthattherespondentcourt,shouldalsohavetakenjudicialnoticeoftheresolutionofthisCourtdirectingthe
saidjudgeto"expeditethesettlementandadjudicationofthecase"inG.R.No.54232.Andfinally,theystatethat
thedisqualificationofjudgeBurgoswoulddelayfurthertheclosingoftheadministrationproceedingasheisthe
onlyjudgewhoisconversantwiththe47volumesoftherecordsofthecase.

Respondent Jose Cuenco Borromeo, to show that he had been harassed. countered that Judge Burgos
appointedRicardoV.ReyesascoadministratoroftheestateonOctober11,1972,yetBorromeowassingledout
tomakeanaccountingofwhatthewassupposedtohavereceivedasrentalsforthelanduponwhichtheJuliana
TradeCenteriserected,fromJanuary,1977toFebruary1982,inclusive,withoutmentioningthewithholdingtax
fortheBureauofInternalRevenue.InordertobolstertheagitationtosellasproposedbyDomingoL.Antigua,
JudgeBurgosinvitedAntonioBarredo,Jr.,toaseriesofconferencesfromFebruary26to28,1979.Duringthe
conferences,Atty.AntonioBarredo,Jr.,offeredtobuythesharesoftheheirsdistributeespresumablytocoverup
theprojectedsaleinitiatedbyAtty.Antigua.

OnMarch2,1979,ortwodaysaftertheconferences,amotionwasfiledbypetitionerDomingoL.Antiguapraying
thatJoseCuencoBorromeoberequiredtofileaninventorywhenhehasalreadyfiledonetoaccountforcash,a
report on which the administrators had already rendered: and to appear and be examined under oath in a
proceeding conducted by Judge Burgos lt was also prayed that subpoena duces tecum be issued for the
appearanceoftheManageroftheConsolidatedBankandTrustCo.,bringingallthebankrecordsinthenameof
Jose Cuenco Borromeo jointly with his wife as well as the appearance of heirsdistributees Amelinda Borromeo
Talam and another heir distributee Vitaliana Borromeo. Simultaneously with the filing of the motion of Domingo
Antigua, Atty. Raul H. Sesbreno filed a request for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the Manager of
Consolidated Bank and 'Trust Co., Inc. Register of Deeds of Cebu City Register of Deeds for the Province of
CebuandanothersubpoenaducestecumtoAtty.JoseCuencoBorromeo.

Onthesamedate,theBranchClerkofCourtissuedasubpoenaducestecumtotheManagertofthebank,the
Register of deeds for the City of Cebu, the Register of Deeds for the Province, of Cebu. and to Jose Cuenco
Borromeo.

Onthefollowingday,March3,1979,AttyGaudiosov.VillagonzaloinbehalfoftheheirsofMarcialBorromeowho
hadacommoncausewithAttyBarredo,Jr.,joinedpetitionerDomingoL.Antiguabyfilingamotionforreliefofthe
administrator.

On March 5, 1979, Atty. Villagonzalo filed a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to private
respondentJoseCuencoBorromeotobringandproducealltheowners"copiesofthetitlesinthecourtpresided
orderbyJudgeBurgos.

Consequently. the Branch Clerk of Court issued a subpoena duces tecum commanding Atty. Jose Cuenco
Borromeotobringandproducethetitlesincourt.

All the aboveincidents were set for hearing on June 7, 1979 but on June 14, 1979, before the date of the
hearing, Judge Burgos issued an order denying the private respondents' motion for reconsideration and the
motiontoquashthesubpoena. 1 a v v p h i1

Itwasfurtherarguedbytheprivaterespondentsthatif,judgeFranciscoP.Burgosisnotinhibitedordisqualified
from trying Sp. Proc. No. 916R, there would be a miscarriage of justice Because for the past twelve years, he
had not done anything towards the closure of the estate proceedings except to sell the properties of the heirs
distributeesasinitiatedbypetitionerDomingoL.Antiguaat6.7millionpesoswhiletheIntestateCourthadalready
evaluateditat15millionpesos.

Theallegationsoftheprivaterespondentsintheirmotionforinhibition,morespecifically,theinsistenceofthetrial
judge to sell the entire estate at P6,700,000.00, where 4/9 group of heirs objected, cannot easily be ignored.
Suspicionofpartialityonthepartofatrialjudgemustbeavoidedatallcosts.InthecaseofBautistav.Rebeuno
(81SCRA535),thisCourtstated:

...TheJudgemustmaintainandpreservethetrustandfaithofthepartieslitigants.Hemustholdhimself
above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether well
groundedornot,theJudgehasnootheralternativebutinhibithimselffromthecase.Ajudgemaynotbe
legally Prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances appear that will induce doubt to his
honestactuationsandprobityinfavororofeitherpartlyorincitesuchstateofmind,heshouldconducta
 carefulselfexamination.Heshouldexercisehisdiscretioninawaythatthepeople'sfaithintheCourtsof
Justiceisnotimpaired,"ThebettercoursefortheJudgeundersuchcircumstancesistodisqualifyhimself
"Thatwayheavoidsbeingmisunderstood,hisreputationforprobityandobjectivityispreserveed.whatis
moreimportant,theIdealofimpartialadministrationofjusticeislivedupto.

In this case, the fervent distrust of the private respondents is based on sound reasons. As Earlier stated,
however, the petition for review seeking to modify the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court insofar as it
disqualifies and inhibits Judge Francisco P. Burgos from further hearing the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo
caseandorderingtheremandofthecasetotheExecutiveJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtforrerafflingshould
beDENIEDforthedecisionisnotonlyvalidbuttheissueitselfhasbecomemootandacademic.

G.R.No.65995

The petitioners seek to restrain the respondents from further acting on any and all incidents in Special
Proceedings No. 916R during the pendency of this petition and No. 63818. They also pray that all acts of the
respondents related to the said special proceedings after March 1, 1983 when the respondent Judge was
disqualifiedbytheappellatecourtbedeclarednullandvoidandwithoutforceandeffectwhatsoever.

ThepetitionersstatethattherespondentJudgehassetforhearingallincidentsinSpecialProceedingsNo.916
R, including the reversion from the heirsdistributees to the estate, of the distributed properties already titled in
their names as early as 1970, notwithstanding the pending inhibition case elevated before this Court which is
docketedasG.R.No.63818.

ThepetitionersfurtherarguethatthepresentstatusofSpecialProceedingNo.916Rrequiresonlytheappraisal
oftheattorney'sfeesofthelawyersclaimantswhowereindividuallyhiredbytheirrespectiveheirsclients,sotheir
attorney'sfeesshouldbelegallychargedagainsttheirrespectiveclientsandnotagainsttheestate.

Ontheotherhand,therespondentsmaintainthatthepetitionisadilatoryoneandbarredbyresjudicatabecause
this Court on July 8, 1981, in G.R. No. 54232 directed the respondent Judge to expedite the settlement and
liquidationofthedecedent'sestate.Theyclaimthatthisresolution,whichwasalreadyfinalandexecutory,wasin
effect reversed and nullified by the Intermediate Appellate Court in its caseAC G.R.No. SP 11145 when it
grantedthepetitionforcertiorariandorprohibitionanddisqualifiedJudgeFranciscoP.Burgosfromtakingfurther
cognizanceofSpecialProceedingsNo.916Raswellasorderingthetransmissionoftherecordsofthecaseto
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Region VII for reraffling on March 1, 1983, which was
appealedtothisCourtbymeansofaPetitionforReview(G.R.No.63818).

We agree with the petitioners' contention that attorney's fees are not the obligation of the estate but of the
individualheirswhoindividuallyhiredtheirrespectivelawyers.Theportion,therefore,oftheOrderofAugust15,
1969, segregating the exhorbitantly excessive amount of 40% of the market value of the estate from which
attorney'sfeesshallbetakenandpaidshouldbedeleted.

DuetoouraffirmanceofthedecisionoftheIntermediateAppellateCourtinG.R.No.63818,wegrantthepetition.

WHEREFORE,

(1) In G.R. No. 41171, the order of the respondent judge dated December 24, 1974, declaring the
respondententitledto5/9oftheestateofthelateVitoBorromeoandtheorderdatedJuly7,1975,denying
the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned order are hereby SET ASIDE for being
NULLandVOID

(2)InG.R.No.55000,theorderofthetrialcourtdeclaringthewaiverdocumentvalidisherebySETASIDE

(3) In G.R. No. 63818, the petition is hereby DENIED. The issue in the decision of the Intermediate
AppellateCourtdisqualifyingandorderingtheinhibitionofJudgeFranciscoP.Burgosfromfurtherhearing
SpecialProceedingsNo.916Risdeclaredmootandacademic.Thejudgewhohastakenoverthesalaof
retired Judge Francisco P. Burgos shall immediately conduct hearings with a view to terminating the
proceedings. In the event that the successorjudge is likewise disqualified, the order of the Intermediate
AppellateCourtdirectingtheExecutiveJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebutorerafflethecaseshall
beimplemented:

(4)InG.R.No.65995,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.'TheissueseekingtorestrainJudgeFranciscoP.
BurgosfromfurtheractinginG.R.No.63818isMOOTandACADEMIC:

(5)InG.R,No,62895,thetrialcourtisherebyorderedtospeedilyterminatethecloseSpecialProceedings
No.916R,subjecttothesubmissionofaninventoryoftherealpropertiesoftheestateandanaccounting
ofthecashandbankdepositsbythepetitioneradministratoroftheestateasrequiredbythisCourtinits
ResolutiondatedJune15,1983and
 (6)TheportionoftheOrderofAugust15,1969,segregating40%ofthemarketvalueoftheestatefrom
which attorney's fees shall be taken and paid should be, as it is hereby DELETED. The lawyers should
collectfromtheheirsdistributeeswhoindividuallyhiredthem,attorney'sfeesaccordingtothenatureofthe
services rendered but in amounts which should not exceed more than 20% of the market value of the
propertythelatteracquiredfromtheestateasbeneficiaries.

SOORDERED.

Feliciano,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.
Fernan(Chairman),tooknopart.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation