Scribd
Upload
107 views1 page

5.de Borja Vs de Borja

The document discusses a legal case regarding a compromise agreement between heirs over an estate. Tasiana, the second wife of Francisco, argued the agreement was invalid because Francisco's will had not been probated yet in court. However, the court held the agreement was valid. It stipulated that Tasiana would receive $800,000 as payment for her share of Francisco and Josefa's estate. The court found the agreement simply conveyed Tasiana's individual share and interest in the estate, not a settlement of the entire estate, so probate of the will was not required. Under Philippine law, a hereditary share is immediately vested at the time of death, even if the exact share is determined later, so heirs can dispose of

Uploaded by

Tricia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views1 page

5.de Borja Vs de Borja

The document discusses a legal case regarding a compromise agreement between heirs over an estate. Tasiana, the second wife of Francisco, argued the agreement was invalid because Francisco's will had not been probated yet in court. However, the court held the agreement was valid. It stipulated that Tasiana would receive $800,000 as payment for her share of Francisco and Josefa's estate. The court found the agreement simply conveyed Tasiana's individual share and interest in the estate, not a settlement of the entire estate, so probate of the will was not required. Under Philippine law, a hereditary share is immediately vested at the time of death, even if the exact share is determined later, so heirs can dispose of

Uploaded by

Tricia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

De Borja v.

De Borja, 46 SCRA 577 immediately after such death, even if the actual
extent of such share is not determined until the
-The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson subsequent liquidation of the estate.
(legal wife) has relinquished her right over the
lands in question because she expressly
renounced to inherit any future property that her
husband may acquire and leave upon his death in
the deed of separation they had entered into
cannot be entertained for the simple reason that
future inheritance cannot be the object of a
contract nor can it be renounced.

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, 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, 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:
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.
The agreement stipulated that Tasiana will 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

You might also like