Jose Borja v.

Tasiana Vda De Borja 000

GR No. L-28040, August 18, 1972, Reyes, JBL, J.
Castro Law 105 Succession
Topic: Art 777: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of
the death of the decedent.

Summary: 2nd wife vs son from 1st wife. They agreed that the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala
property will be sold and that the son, Jose will pay 2nd wife, Tasiana, P800 as settlement of her
hereditary share in the estate of Francisco. SC ruled that it was valid. As a hereditary share in a
decedents estate is vested immediately from the moment of the death of such predecessor in
interest, there is no legal bar to a successor disposing of his hereditary share immediately after
such death, even if the actual extent is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the
estate. Also, Tasiana is a compulsory heir. Her successional interest existed independent of the
last will and would exist even if such will were not probated at all.

FACTS
Francisco de Borja (deceased) married Josefa Tangco (deceased). They had a son, Jose,
who became the sole administrator of the estate of his mother upon the death of
Francisco. It was Francisco who filed a petition for the probate of Josefas will before the
CFI Rizal. As for Franciscos estate, it was his second wife, Tasiana Ongisingco, who
was appointed special administratrix.

There were several suits between the children of the 1st marriage and Tasiana; including
the case at bar. To put an end to the issue of Josefinas estate, a compromise agreement
was made between the son of Francisco by his 1st marriage (Jose) and the surviving
spouse of Francisco by his 2nd marriage (Tasiana). Terms of the agreement:
o Sell the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala properties in Rizal, presently under
administration of Josefa
o Jose must pay Tasiana P800k as settlement of her hereditary share in the estate of
Francisco
o They both mutually renounce, withdraw any action or suits or debts which they
may have against each other

Jose submitted to CFI Rizal and CFI Nueva Ecija for the approval of the agreement.
Tasiana opposed both. CFI Rizal approved and Tasiana appealed. On the other hand, CFI
NE declared it null and void and Jose appealed such disapproval. Tasiana was contending
that the heirs cannot enter into such agreement without first probating the will.

Tasiana used Guevara vs Guevara where SC ruled that the probate of the will is
mandatory and the settlement is against the law and public policy. She also said that
Rule 74 Sec1 provides that the conditions for validity of extrajudicial settlement
between heirs is if the decedent left no will and no debt, and heirs are all of age xxx.
 Since the will is still in Nueva Ecija Court pending probation when the 1963 agreement
was made, it bars the validity of the agreement.

Jose, on the other hand, stressed that at the time it was entered into (Oct 12, 1963), the
provision was ROC Rule 74 Sec 1 which allowed extrajudicial settlement regardless of
WON he left a will. He also used the dissenting opinion of Justice Moran in Guevara case
where it was said that if the parties have already divided the estate in accordance with a
decedents will, the probate of the will is a useless ceremony; and if they have divided the
estate in a different manner, the probate of the will is worse than useless.

ISSUES & HOLDING

WON the compromise agreement is valid even if there was no probate of the will? YES

RATIO
SC ruled that the ruling in Guevara case is not applicable since there was no attempt to
distribute the estate of Francisco among the heirs before the probate of the will. The
object of the contract was merely the conveyance by Tasiana of any and all her individual
share in the estate of Francisco and Josefa. There is no stipulation as to any other
claimant, creditor or legatee. And as a hereditary share in a decedents estate is vested
immediately from the moment of death (Art 777) there is no legal bar to a successor
disposing of his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the actual extent is
not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate. Such alienation is limited to
what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, the aleatory character does
not affect the validity of the transaction; neither does the coetaneous agreement that the
numerous litigations between the parties are to be considered settled, although such
stipulation gives the contract the character of a compromise that the law favors, for
obvious reasons, if only because it serves to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

Also, Tasiana is the surviving spouse and thus a compulsory heir. Her successional
interest existed independent of the last will and testament and would exist even if such
will were not probated at all. Thus, a probate of the will as a prerequisite does not apply.

SC ruled that the transaction was binding on both in their individual capacities upon the
perfection of the contract even without Courts authority. Only difference between an
extrajudicial compromise and one that is submitted by the Court is that the latter can be
enforced by execution proceedings as per CC 2037: A compromise has upon the parties
the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in
compliance with judicial compromise.

CFI Rizal had no jurisdiction to approve the compromise with Jose because Tasiana was
not an heir in the estate of Josefa pending settlement in the Rizal Court, but she was an
heir of Francisco, whose estate was the object of the special proceeding of CFI Nueva
Ecija. But this is irrelevant, since what was sold by Tasiana was only her eventual share
 in the estate of her late husband, not the estate itself; and that eventual share she owned
from the time of Franciscos death and the Court of Nueva Ecija could not bar her selling
it. As owner of her undivided hereditary share, Tasiana could dispose of it in favor of
whomsoever she chose as per CC 1088: Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights
to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights
of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within
the period of 1 months from the time they were notified in writing of the sale of the
vendor.

If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a stranger, then a fortiori sale thereof to a co-
heir could not be forbidden.

DISPOSITIVE
The appealed order of the CFI of Rizal is affirmed.