De Borja vs De Borja, 46 SCRA 577

De Borja vs. De Borja

August 18, 1972 G.R. No. L-28040 REYES, J.B.L., J.

Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case

Article 777 of the Civil Code provides “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.”

FACTS

• Of these cases, the first, numbered L-28040 is an appeal by Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, special
administratrix of the testate estate of Francisco de Borja and And Case No. L-28611 is an appeal by
administrator Jose de Borja from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch X, in its Civil
Case No. 7452, declaring the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion, which is the main object of the aforesaid
compromise agreement, as the separate and exclusive property of the late Francisco de Borja and not a
conjugal asset of the community with his first wife, Josefa Tangco, and that said hacienda pertains exclusively
to his testate estate, which is under administrator in Special Proceeding No. 832 of the Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija, Branch II.
• Francisco de Borja filed a petition for probate of the will of his wife who died, Josefa Tangco, with the Court
of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. He was appointed executor and administrator, until he died.
• His son Jose became the sole administrator.
• Francisco had taken a second wife named Tasiana before he died.
• She then 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, but 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.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)

Whether the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of Francisco has not yet been probated. - YES

RULING (include how the law was applied)

The court ruled in the affirmative so yes, the compromise agreement is valid.

The agreement stipulated that Tasiana would receive P800,000 as full payment for her hereditary share in
the estate of Francisco and Josefa. 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 (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.

DISPOSITIVE

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.