Case Digest: De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja, No. L-28040. August 18, 1972

                                          Art. 777 | Succession, Compromise Agreement

Provision:

Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.

Art. 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 one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale of the vendor.

Ponente:

Reyes, JBL

Facts:

Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja were married.

In 1940, Josefa died. 

Francisco initiated the probate of her will.

Francisco was appointed as executor and administrator, while their son Jose de Borja was co-administrator.

In 1954, Franciso died before settling the estate of Josefa.

Jose became the sole administrator of the testate estate of his mother.

Francisco allegedly married Tasiana Ongsingco before his death.

Tasiana instituted testate proceedings where she was appointed special administratrix. 

The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana has been plagued with several court suits. 

In 1963, a compromise agreement was made between Jose and Tasiana to put an end to all the litigations.

The agreement obligated Jose to pay Php 800,000 to Tasiana, covering her share in both Francisco's and Josefa's estates. 

Jose submitted the agreement for court approval in Rizal (Josefa's will) and Nueva Ecija (Francisco's will) CFIs. Tasiana opposed the agreement.

Rizal CFI:.

Approved the agreement.

Nueva Ecija CFI:

Declared the agreement void and unenforceable.

 

Issue:

WoN the compromise agreement is valid. (YES)

Arguments:

(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.

Guevara vs. Guevara -  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.

Held:

CFI-Rizal affirmed.

The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara 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.  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.

Of course, the effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, the aleatory character of the contract 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 and should be dismissed, although such stipulation, as noted by the Rizal Court, 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.

It is likewise worthy of note in this connection that as the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was his compulsory heir. 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 of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.

Where the compromise agreement was entered into by and between the various heirs in the personal capacity, 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. The only difference between an extrajudicial compromise and one that is submitted and approved by the Court, is that the latter can be enforced by execution proceedings. 

As owner of her individual share, an heir could dispose of it in favor of whomsoever she chose, including another heir of the same defendant.