Testate Estate of Josefa tangco v. De Borja, G.R. No. L-28040, August 18, 1972.

25JUL

[REYES, J.B.L., J.]

FACTS

The testate estate of Josefa Tangco alone has been unsettled for more than a quarter of a century. In
order to put an end to all these litigations, a compromise agreement was entered into. Tasiana assailed
the validity of agreement applying the doctrine in Guevarra v. Guevarra. Jose de Borja pointed out that
the Rules of Court allows the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of a deceased person regardless of
whether he left a will or not.

ISSUE

Whether or not the heirs may enter into compromise agreement to convey their share of the
inheritance even before the probate of the will.

RULING

YES. The ruling in Guevarra v. Guevara, relied by the appellant, which declared invalid a compromise
agreement which disposes of the estate before probate of the will is not applicable here. Successional
rights are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent (Art. 777). In this case, 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 JosefaTangco. 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.

Digest 2

Jose De Borja vs. Tasiana Vda de Borja

G.R. No. L-28040, L-28568, L-28611 August 18, 1972

Facts:

Francisco de Borja filed a petition for probate of the will of his wife who died, Josefa Tangco, with the
CFI of Rizal. He was appointed executor and administrator of Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion, until he died;
his son Jose became the sole administrator. Francisco had taken a 2nd wife Tasiana before he died; she
instituted testate proceedings with the CFI of Nueva Ecija upon his death and was appointed special
administatrix.
Jose and Tasiana entered upon a compromise agreement, which includes:

selling the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala,

Jose de Borja obligating himself to pay Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja P800,000,

Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja hereby assuming payment of that particular obligation incurred by
the late Francisco de Borja in favor of Development Bank of the Philippines,

the buyer of Jalajala "Poblacion" is hereby authorized to pay directly to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
Borja the balance of the payment due,

they mutually renounce waive any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits,
debts, 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 under, shall deliver to the heir Jose de
Borja all the papers, titles and documents belonging to Francisco de Borja which are in her possession

Tasiana opposed the approval of the compromise agreement. She argues that it was no 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.

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, while
Jose de Borja appealed the order of disapproval by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.

Issue:

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

Held:

YES, the compromise agreement is valid.

Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija relied on the 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 distribution of an estate on the basis of intestacy when the
decedent left a will, is against the law and public policy.
However, the doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara is not applicable to the case at bar. There was 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 (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.

In addition, as the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was his compulsory heir
Wherefore, 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, cannot apply to the case of Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.

The Rizal court’s decision was upheld, while the contrary resolution of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija was reversed.