CASE DIGEST: Borja v. Vda. de Borja

 

De Borja vs. Vda. de Borja

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

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 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.