FIRST DIVISION

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

TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO JOSE DE BORJA ,

administrator-appellee, JOSE DE BORJA, as administrator,
CAYETANO DE BORJA, MATILDE DE BORJA and CRISANTO DE
BORJA (deceased) as Children of Josefa Tangco, appellees,
vs. TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, Special Administratrix of
the Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, appellant.

[G.R. No. L-28568.]

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO DE BORJA,

TASIANA O. VDA. DE DE BORJA, special Administratrix
appellee, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, oppositor-appellant.

[G.R. No. L-28611.]

TASIANA O. VDA. DE DE BORJA, as Administratrix of the

Testate Estate of the late Francisco de Borja, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, as Administrator of the Testate
Estate of the late Josefa Tangco, defendant-appellant.

Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for administrator-appellee.

Quiogue & Quiogue for appellee Matilde de Borja.
Andres Matias for appellee Cayetano de Borja.
Sevilla & Aquino for appellant.
Sevilla & Aquino for special administratrix-appellee.
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for oppositor-appellant.
Sevilla & Aquino for plaintiff-appellee.
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir and David Guevara for defendant-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; HEREDITARY SHARE IN

ESTATE VESTS FROM THE MOMENT OF DEATH OF DECEDENT; SHARE
IMMEDIATELY DISPOSABLE. — The hereditary share in a decedent's estate is
transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death of the
causante or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777,
[3], and 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 subsequent liquidation of the estate. The effect of such alienation is to be
deemed limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir, but the
aleatory character of the contract does not affect the validity of the
transaction.
2. ID.; ID.: PRESENTATION OF WILL FOR PROBATE NOT NEEDED IN
CONVEYANCE BY HEIR OF HER SHARE. — The doctrine enunciated in
Guevara vs. Guevara (74 Phil. 749) which states 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, is not applicable to the cases at bar where there was
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
compromise contract between Jose de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de
Borja being merely the conveyance by the latter of any and all her individual
share and interest, actual or eventual, in the estates of Francisco de Borja
and Josefa Tangco.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPROMISE CONTRACT BINDING ON PARTIES EVEN
IF WITHOUT PROBATE COURT APPROVAL. — 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 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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTRAJUDICIAL
COMPROMISE AND ONE APPROVED BY THE COURT. — 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.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID., EFFECT OF CONTRACT ON PERSON NOT PARTY
THERETO, INSTANT CASE. — The resolutory period of 60 days, allegedly
intended to limit the effectiveness of the compromise agreement between
Tasiana Ongsingco and Jose de Borja, but which was embodied in another
agreement between Ongsingco and the brothers and sisters of De Borja,
does not have any validity as far as De Borja is concerned since De Borja
was not a party to the second agreement.
6. ID.; ID.; SUCCESSIONAL INTEREST OF COMPULSORY HEIR EXISTS
INDEPENDENT OF WILL OF TESTATOR, OR PROBATE THEREOF. — The
prerequisite of a previous probate of a will established in the Guevara and
analogous cases, can not apply to the case of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
Borja who, as the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja was his compulsory
heir under articles 995 et. seq. of the present Civil Code and, 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 7. ID.; ID.; HEREDITARY SHARE CAN BE SOLD TO A CO-HEIR. — The
owner of the undivided hereditary share could dispose of it in favor of
whomsoever such owner chose. Such alienation is expressly recognized and
provided for by article 1088 of the present Civil Code: "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
by the vendor." If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a stranger,
then a fortiori sale thereof to a coheir could not be forbidden.
8. ID.: CONTRACTS; INABILITY TO REACH NOVATORY ACCORD DOES
NOT INVALIDATE ORIGINALLY VALID CONTRACT. — The inability to reach a
novatory accord can not invalidate the original compromise agreement
entered into by the parties and justifies the act of one of the parties in finally
seeking a court order for its approval and enforcement.
9. ID., PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
PROPERTY; PRESUMPTION OF CONJUGAL CHARACTER OF PROPERTY
CONFIRMED IN INSTANT CASE. — The legal presumption in favor of the
conjugal character of the Hacienda de Jalajala concededly acquired by
Francisco de Borja during his marriage to his first wife, cannot be rebutted
by testimony which is plain hearsay having a clearly discernible ring of
artificiality and a statement which is plainly self-serving and which is not
admissible in the absence of cross-examination. Such legal presumption has
actually been confirmed by the clear admissions against the pecuniary
interest of the declarants Francisco de Borja and his executor-widow Tasiana
Ongsingco consisting of solemn admissions by the former in the Reamended
Inventory and Reamended Accounting in Special Proceedings No. 7866 of
the CFI of Rizal and the latter's inventory submitted in court listing the
Jalajala property as "Conjugal properties of the Spouses Francisco de Borja
and Josefa Tangco."
10. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES;
FLUCTUATION IN VALUE OF CURRENCY DOES NOT WARRANT REVALUATION
OF PROPERTIES OF ESTATE. — The decision that "estates, would never be
settled if there were to be a revaluation with every subsequent fluctuation in
the values of currency and properties of the estate," is particularly apposite
in the present case where Tasiana Ongsingco pleads that the time elapsed in
the appeal has affected her unfavorably because, while the purchasing
power of the agreed price of P800,000 has diminished, the value of the
Jalajala property has increased. The fact is that her delay in receiving the
payment of the agreed price for her hereditary interest was primarily due to
her attempts to nullify the agreement she had formally entered into with the
advice of her counsel.

DECISION

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 REYES, J.B.L., J : p

Of these case, the first, numbered L-28040 is an appeal by Tasiana

Ongsico Vda. de de Borja, special administratrix of the testate estate of
Francisco de Borja, 1 from the approval of a compromise agreement by the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I. In its Special Proceeding No. R-
7866, entitled, "Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, Jose de Borja,
Administrator."
Case No. L-28568 is an appeal by administrator Jose de Borja from the
disapproval of the same compromise agreement by the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch II, in its Special Proceeding No. 832, entitled,
"Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana O. Vda. de de Borja, Special
Administratrix".
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 administration in Special
Proceeding No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch II.
It is uncontested that Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife
Josefa Tangco on 6 October 1940, filed a petition for the probate of her will
which was docketed as Special Proceeding No. R-7866 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated on 2 April 1941. In 1946,
Francisco de Borja was appointed executor and administrator: in 1952, their
son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-administrator. When Francisco died, on
14 April 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of the testate estate of his
mother, Jose Tangco While a widower Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto
himself a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon Francisco's death, Tasiana
instituted testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
where, in 1955, she was appointed special administratrix. The validity of
Tasiana's marriage to Francisco was questioned in said proceeding.
The relationship between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana
Ongsingco has been plagued with several court suits and counter-suits;
including the three cases at bar, some eighteen (18) cases remain pending
determination in the courts. The testate estate of Josefa Tangco alone has
been unsettled for more than a quarter of a century. In order to put an end
to all these litigations, a compromise agreement was entered into on 12
October 1963, 2 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,
assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr." The terms and conditions
of the compromise agreement are as follows:
"A G R E E M E N T

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between
The 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
The heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his
second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, assisted by her
lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr.
WITNESSETH
THAT it is the mutual desire of all the parties herein to
terminate and settle, with finality, the various court litigations,
controversies, claims, counterclaims, etc., between them in
connection with the administration, settlement, partition, adjudication
and distribution of the assets as well as liabilities of the estates of
Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse of Francisco de
Borja.
THAT with this end in view, the parties herein have agreed
voluntarily and without any reservations to enter into and execute
this agreement under the following terms and conditions:
1. That the parties agree to sell the Poblacion portion of the
Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala, Rizal, presently under
administration in the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco (SP. Proc. No.
7866, Rizal), more specifically described as follows:
'Linda al Norte con el Rio Puwang que la separa de la
jurisdiccion del Municipio de Pililla de la Provincia de Rizal, y con
el pico del Monte Zambrano; al Oeste con la Laguna de Bay; por
el Sur con los herederos de Marcelo de Borja; y por el Este con
los terrenos de la Familia Maronilla'
with a segregated area of approximately 1,313 hectares at the
amount of P0.30 per square meter.
2. That Jose de Borja agrees and obligates himself to pay
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the total amount of Eight
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000) Philippine Currency, in cash,
which represent P200,000 as his share in the payment and P600,000
as pro-rata shares of the heirs Crisanto, Cayetano, and Matilde, all
surnamed de Borja and this shall be considered as full and complete
payment and settlement of her hereditary share in the estate of the
late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate of Josefa Tangco, Sp.
Proc. No. 832-Nueva Ecija and Sp. Proc. No. 7866-Rizal, respectively,
and to any properties bequeathed or devised in her favor by the late
Francisco de Borja by Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter
Vivos or Mortis Causa or purportedly conveyed to her for
consideration or otherwise. The funds for this payment shall be taken
from and shall depend upon the receipt of full payment of the
proceeds of the sale of Jalajala, 'Poblacion.'
3. That Tasiana Ongsinco Vda. de de Borja hereby assumes
payment of that particular obligation incurred by the late Francisco de
Borja in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, now
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Development Bank of the Philippines, amounting to approximately
P30,000.00 and also assumes payment of her 1/5 share of the Estate
and Inheritance taxes on the Estate of the late Francisco de Borja or
the sum of P3,500.00, more or less, which shall be deducted by the
buyer of Jalajala, 'Poblacion' from the payment to be made to Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de Borja under paragraph 2 of this Agreement and
paid directly to the Development Bank of the Philippines and the
heirs-children of Francisco de Borja.
4. Thereafter, the buyer of Jalajala 'Poblacion' is hereby
authorized to pay directly Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the
balance of the payment due her under paragraph 2 of this Agreement
(approximately P766,500.00) and issue in the name of Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, corresponding certified checks/treasury
warrant, who, in turn, will issue the corresponding receipt to Jose de
Borja.
5. In consideration of above payment to Tasiana Ongsingco
Vda. de de Borja, Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the
Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, and Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
Borja, for themselves and for their heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, and assigns, hereby forever mutually renounce,
withdraw, waive, remise, release and discharge any and all manner of
action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, sum or sums
of money, accounts, damages, claims and demands whatsoever, in
law or in equity, which they ever had, or now have or may have
against each other, more specifically Sp. Proceedings Nos. 7866 and
1955, CFI-Rizal, and Sp. Proc. No 832-Nueva Ecija, Civil Case No.
3033, CFI-Nueva Ecija and Civil Case No. 7452-CFI, Rizal, as well as
the case filed against Manuel Quijal for perjury with the Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal, the intention being to completely, absolutely and
finally release each other, their heirs, successors, and assigns, from
any and all liability, arising wholly or partially, directly or indirectly,
from the administration, settlement, and distribution of the assets as
well as liabilities of the estates of Francisco de Borja and Josefa
Tangco, first spouse of Francisco de Borja, and lastly, Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja expressly and specifically renounce
absolutely her rights as heir over any hereditary share in the estate of
Francisco de Borja.
6. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon receipt of
the payment under paragraph 4 hereof, shall deliver to the heir Jose
de Borja all the papers, titles and documents belonging to Francisco
de Borja which are in her possession and said heir Jose de Borja shall
issue in turn the corresponding receipt thereof.
7. That this agreement shall take effect only upon the
fulfillment of the sale of the properties mentioned under paragraph 1
of this agreement and upon receipt of the total and full payment of
the proceeds of the sale of the Jalajala property 'Poblacion', otherwise,
the non-fulfillment of the said sale will render this instrument NULL
AND VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT THEREAFTER.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set
their hands in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 12th of October,
1963."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 On 16 May 1966, Jose de Borja submitted for Court approval the
agreement of 12 October 1963 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 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 (now Supreme Court
G.R. case No. L-28040), while administrator Jose de Borja appealed the order
of disapproval (G.R. case No. L-28568) by the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija.
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 of 12 October 1963, Tasiana
Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this Court's decision
in Guevara vs. Guevara. 74 Phil. 479, 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. It is likewise pointed
out by appellant Tasiana Ongsingco that Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Revised
Rules explicitly conditions the validity of an extrajudicial settlement of a
decedent's estate by agreement between heirs, upon the facts that "(if) the
decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors
are represented by their judicial and legal representatives . . ." The will of
Francisco de Borja having been submitted to the Nueva Ecija Court and still
pending probate when the 1963 agreement was made, those circumstances,
it is argued, bar the validity of the agreement.
Upon the other hand, in claiming the validity of the compromise
agreement, Jose de Borja stresses that at the time it was entered into, on 12
October 1963, the governing provision was Section 1, Rule 74 of the original
Rules of Court of 1940, which allowed the extrajudicial settlement of the
estate of a deceased person regardless of whether he left a will or not. He
also relies on the dissenting opinion of Justice Moran, in Guevara vs.
Guevara, 74 Phil. 479, wherein was expressed the view that if the parties
have already divided the estate in accordance with a decedent's 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.
The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara, ante, is not applicable to the
case at bar. This is apparent from an examination of the terms of the
agreement between Jose de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco. Paragraph 2 of
said agreement specifically stipulates that the sum of P800,000 payable to
Tasiana Ongsingco —
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 "shall be considered as full — complete payment — settlement
of her hereditary share in the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as
well as the estate of Josefa Tangco, . . . and to any properties
bequeathed or devised in her favor by the late Francisco de Borja by
Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter Vivos or Mortis Causa or
purportedly conveyed to her for consideration or otherwise."
This provision evidences beyond doubt that the ruling in the Guevara
case is not applicable to the cases 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 (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777) 3 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. 4
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
(the approving order of the Rizal Court enumerates fourteen of them, Rec.
App. pp. 79-82) 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
under article 995 et seq. 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 of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.
Since the compromise contract Annex A 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 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 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. Art. 2037 of the Civil Code is explicit on the point:
Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in
compliance with a judicial compromise.
It is argued by Tasiana Ongsingco that while the agreement Annex A
expressed no definite period for its performance, the same was intended to
have a resolutory period of 60 days for its effectiveness. In support of such
contention, it is averred that such a limit was expressly stipulated in an
agreement in similar terms entered into by said Ongsingco with the brothers
and sister of Jose de Borja, to wit, Crisanto, Matilde and Cayetano, all
surnamed de Borja, except that the consideration was fixed at P600,000
(Opposition, Annex/Rec. of Appeal, L-28040, pp. 39-46) and which contained
the following clause:
"III. That this agreement shall take effect only upon the
consummation of the sale of the property mentioned herein and upon
receipt of the total and full payment of the proceeds of the sale by the
herein owner heirs-children of Francisco de Borja, namely, Crisanto,
Cayetano and Matilde, all surnamed de Borja; Provided that if no sale
of the said property mentioned herein is consummated, or the non-
receipt of the purchase price thereof by the said owners within the
period of sixty (60) days from the date hereof, this agreement will
become null and void and of no further effect."
Ongsingco's argument loses validity when it is considered that Jose de
Borja was not a party to this particular contract (Annex 1), and that the same
appears not to have been finalized, since it bears no date, the day being left
blank "this — day of October 1963"; and while signed by the parties, it was
not notarized, although plainly intended to be so done, since it carries a
proposed notarial ratification clause. Furthermore, the compromise contract
with Jose de Borja (Annex A), provides in its par. 2 heretofore transcribed
that of the total consideration of P800,000 to be paid to Ongsingco,
P600,000 represent the "pro rata share of the heirs Crisanto, Cayetano and
Matilde, all surnamed de Borja" which corresponds to the consideration of
P600,000 recited in Annex 1, and that circumstance is proof that the duly
notarized contract entered into with Jose de Borja under date 12 October
1963 (Annex A), was designed to absorb and supersede the separate
unformalized agreement with the other three Borja heirs. Hence, the 60 days
resolutory term in the contract with the latter (Annex 1) not being repeated
in Annex A, can not apply to the formal compromise with Jose de Borja. It is
moreover manifest that the stipulation that the sale of the Hacienda de
Jalajala was to be made within sixty days from the date of the agreement
with Jose de Borja's coheirs (Annex 1) was plainly omitted in Annex A as
improper and ineffective, since the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) that was
to be sold to raise the P800,000 to be paid to Ongsingco for her share
formed part of the estate of Francisco de Borja and could not be sold until
authorized by the Probate Court. The Court of First Instance of Rizal so
understood it, and in approving the compromise it fixed a term of 120 days
counted from the finality of the order now under appeal, for the carrying out
by the parties of the terms of the contract.
This brings us to the plea that the Court of First In stance of Rizal had
no jurisdiction to approve the compromise with Jose de Borja (Annex A)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 because Tasiana Ongsingco was not an heir in the estate of Josefa Tangco
pending settlement in the Rizal Court, but she was an heir of Francisco de
Borja, whose estate was the object of Special Proceeding No. 832 of the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. This circumstance is irrelevant, since
what was sold by Tasiana Ongsingco was only her eventual share in the
estate of her late husband, not the estate itself; and as already shown, that
eventual share she owned from the time of Francisco's 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 Such alienation is expressly recognized and provided for by article
1088 of the present Civil Code:
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."
If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a stranger, thena fortiori
sale thereof to a coheir could not be forbidden.
Tasiana Ongsingco further argues that her contract with Jose de Borja
(Annex "A") is void because it amounts to a compromise as to her status and
marriage with the late Francisco de Borja. The point is without merit, for the
very opening paragraph of the agreement with Jose de Borja (Annex "A")
describes her as "the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his
second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja", which is in itself
definite admission of her civil status. There is nothing in the text of the
agreement that would show that this recognition of Ongsingco's status as
the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja was only made in consideration of
the cession of her hereditary rights.
It is finally charged by appellant Ongsingco, as well as by the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of 21 September 1964, in Special
Proceedings No. 832 (Amended Record on Appeal in L-28568, page 157),
that the compromise agreement of 13 October 1963 (Annex "A") had been
abandoned, as shown by the fact that, after its execution, the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, in its order of 21 September 1964, had declared
that "no amicable settlement had been arrived at by the parties", and that
Jose de Borja himself, in a motion of 17 June 1964, had stated that the
proposed amicable settlement "had failed to materialize".
It is difficult to believe, however, that the amicable settlement referred
to in the order and motion above-mentioned was the compromise
agreement of 13 October 1963, which already had been formally signed and
executed by the parties and duly notarized. What the record discloses is that
some time after its formalization, Ongsingco had unilaterally attempted to
back out from the compromise agreement, pleading various reasons
restated in the opposition to the Court's approval of Annex "A" (Record on
Appeal, L-20840, page 23): that the same was invalid because of the lapse
of the allegedly intended resolutory period of 60 days and because the
contract was not preceded by the probate of Francisco de Borja's will, as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 required by this Court's Guevarra vs. Guevara ruling; that Annex "A"
involved a compromise affecting Ongsingco's status as wife and widow of
Francisco de Borja, etc., all of which objections have been already discussed.
It was natural that in view of the widow's attitude, Jose de Borja should
attempt to reach a new settlement or novatory agreement before seeking
judicial sanction and enforcement of Annex "A", since the latter step might
ultimately entail a longer delay in attaining final remedy. That the attempt to
reach another settlement failed is apparent from the letter of Ongsingco's
counsel to Jose de Borja quoted in pages 35-36 of the brief for appellant
Ongsingco in G.R. No. L-28040; and it is more than probable that the order
of 21 September 1964 and the motion of 17 June 1964 referred to the failure
of the parties' quest for a more satisfactory compromise. But the inability to
reach a novatory accord can not invalidate the original compromise (Annex
"A") and justifies the act of Jose de Borja in finally seeking a court order for
its approval and enforcement from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which,
as heretofore described, decreed that the agreement be ultimately
performed within 120 days from the finality of the order, now under appeal.
We conclude that in so doing, the Rizal court acted in accordance with
law, and, therefore, its order should be upheld, while the contrary resolution
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija should be, and is, reversed.
In her brief, Tasiana Ongsingco also pleads that the time elapsed in the
appeal has affected her unfavorably, in that while the purchasing power of
the agreed price of P800,000 has diminished, the value of the Jalajala
property has increased. But the fact is that her delay in receiving the
payment of the agreed price for her hereditary interest was primarily due to
her attempts to nullify the agreement (Annex "A") she had formally entered
into with the advice of her counsel, Attorney Panaguiton. And as to the
devaluation de facto of our currency, what We said in Dizon Rivera vs. Dizon,
L-24561, 30 June 1970, 33 SCRA 554, that "estates would never be settled if
there were to be a revaluation with every subsequent fluctuation in the
values of currency and properties of the estate", is particularly opposite in
the present case.
Coming now to Case G.R. No. L-28611, the issue is whether the
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion), concededly acquired by Francisco de Borja
during his marriage to his first wife, Josefa Tangco, is the husband's private
property (as contended by his second spouse, Tasiana Ongsingco), or
whether it forms part of the conjugal (ganancial) partnership with Josefa
Tangco The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Judge Herminio Mariano,
presiding) declared that there was adequate evidence to overcome the
presumption in favor of its conjugal character established by Article 160 of
the Civil Code.
We are of the opinion that this question as between Tasiana Ongsingco
and Jose de Borja has become moot and academic, in view of the conclusion
reached by this Court in the two preceding cases (G.R. No. L-28568),
upholding as valid the cession of Tasiana Ongsingco's eventual share in the
estate of her late husband, Francisco de Borja, for the sum of P800,000 with
the accompanying reciprocal quit-claims between the parties. But as the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 question may affect the rights of possible creditors and legatees, its
resolution is still imperative.
It is undisputed that the Hacienda Jalajala, of around 4,363 hectares,
had been originally acquired jointly by Francisco de Borja, Bernardo de Borja
and Marcelo de Borja, and their title thereto was duly registered in their
names as co-owners in Land Registration Case No. 528 of the province of
Rizal, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26403 (De Barjo vs. Jugo, 54 Phil. 465).
Subsequently, in 1931, the Hacienda was partitioned among the co-owners:
the Punta section went to Marcelo de Borja; the Bagombong section to
Bernardo de Borja, and the part in Jalajala proper (Poblacion) corresponded
to Francisco de Borja (V. De Borja vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911, 932).
The lot allotted to Francisco was described as —
"Una Parcela de terreno en Poblacion, jalajala: N. Puang Rier; E.
Hermogena Romero; S. Heirs of Marcelo de Borja, O. Laguna de Bay;
containing an area of 13,488,870 sq. m. more or less, assessed at
P297,410." (Record on Appeal, pages 7 and 105)
On 20 November 1962, Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, as Administratrix of
the Testate Estate of Francisco de Borja, instituted a complaint in the Court
of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 7452) against Jose de Borja, in his
capacity as Administrator of Josefa Tangco (Francisco de Borja's first wife),
seeking to have the Hacienda above described declared exclusive private
property of Francisco, while in his answer defendant (now appellant) Jose de
Borja claimed that it was conjugal property of his parents (Francisco de Borja
and Josefa Tangco), conformably to the presumption established by Article
160 of the Philippine Civil Code (reproducing Article 1407 of the Civil Code of
1889), to the effect that:
"Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife."
Defendant Jose de Borja further counterclaimed for damages,
compensatory, moral and exemplary, as well as for attorney's fees.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, per Judge Herminio
Mariano, held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption, and declared the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) to be the
exclusive private property of the late Francisco de Borja, and his
Administratrix, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, to be entitled to its
possession. Defendant Jose de Borja then appealed to this Court.
The evidence reveals, and the appealed order admits, that the
character of the Hacienda in question as owned by the conjugal partnership
De Borja-Tangco was solemnly admitted by the late Francisco de Borja no
less than two times: first, in the Reamended Inventory that, as executor of
the estate of his deceased wife Josefa Tangco, he filed in the Special
Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal on 23 July 1953
(Exhibit "2"); and again, in the Reamended Accounting of the same date,
also filed in the proceedings aforesaid (Exhibit "7"). Similarly, the plaintiff
Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja, herself, as oppositor in the Estate of Josefa Tangco,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 submitted therein an inventory dated 7 September 1954 (Exhibit "3") listing
the Jalajala property among the "Conjugal Properties of the Spouses
Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco". And once more, Tasiana Ongsingco,
as administratrix of the Estate of Francisco de Borja, in Special Proceedings
No. 832 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, submitted therein in
December, 1955, an inventory wherein she listed the Jalajala Hacienda under
the heading "Conjugal Property of the Deceased Spouses Francisco de Borja
and Josefa Tangco, which are in the possession of the Administrator of the
Testate Estate of the Deceased Josefa Tangco in Special Proceedings No
7866 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal" (Exhibit "4").
Notwithstanding the four statements aforesaid, and the fact that they
are plain admissions against interest made by both Francisco de Borja and
the Administratrix of his estate, in the course of judicial proceedings in the
Rizal and Nueva Ecija Courts, supporting the legal presumption in favor of
the conjugal community, the Court below declared that the Hacienda de
Jalajala (Poblacion) was not conjugal property, but the private exclusive
property of the late Francisco de Borja. It did so on the strength of the
following evidences: (a) the sworn statement by Francisco de Borja on 6
August 1951 (Exhibit "F") that —
"He tomado posesion del pedazo de terreno ya delimitado
(equivalente a 1/4 parte, 337 hectareas) adjunto a mi terreno
personal y exclusivo (Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal)."
and (b) the testimony of Gregorio de Borja, son of Bernardo de Borja, that
the entire Hacienda had been bought at a foreclosure sale for P40,100.00, of
which amount P25,100 was contributed by Bernardo de Borja and
P15,000.00 by Marcelo de Borja; that upon receipt of a subsequent demand
from the provincial treasurer for realty taxes in the sum of P17,000, Marcelo
told his brother Bernardo that Francisco (son of Marcelo) wanted also to be a
co-owner, and upon Bernardo's assent to the proposal, Marcelo issued a
check for P17,000.00 to pay the back taxes and said that the amount would
represent Francisco's contribution in the purchase of the Hacienda. The
witness further testified that —
"Marcelo de Borja said that money was entrusted to him by
Francisco de Borja when he was still a bachelor and which he derived
from his business transactions." (Hearing, 2 February 1965, t.s.n.,
pages 13-15) (Emphasis supplied)
The Court below, reasoning that not only Francisco's sworn statement
overweighed the admissions in the inventories relied upon by defendant-
appellant Jose de Borja, since probate courts can not finally determine
questions of ownership of inventoried property, but that the testimony of
Gregorio de Borja showed that Francisco de Borja acquired his share of the
original Hacienda with his own private funds, for which reason that share can
not be regarded as conjugal partnership property, but as exclusive property
of the buyer, pursuant to Article L-1396 (4) of the Civil Code of 1889 and
Article 148 (4) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
"The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
"(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the
wife or of the husband."
We find the conclusions of the lower court to be untenable. In the first
place, witness Gregorio de Borja's testimony as to the source of the money
paid by Francisco for his share was plain hearsay, hence inadmissible and of
no probative value, since he was merely repeating what Marcelo de Borja
had told him (Gregorio). There is no way of ascertaining the truth of the
statement, since both Marcelo and Francisco de Borja were already dead
when Gregorio testified. In addition, the statement itself is improbable, since
there was no need or occasion for Marcelo de Borja to explain to Gregorio
how and when Francisco de Borja had earned the P17,000.00 entrusted to
Marcelo. A ring of artificiality is clearly discernible in this portion of
Gregorio's testimony.
As to Francisco de Borja's affidavit, Exhibit "F", the quoted portion
thereof (ante, page 14) does not clearly demonstrate that the "mi terreno
personal y exclusivo (Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal)" refers precisely to the
Hacienda in question. The inventories (Exhibits 3 and 4) disclose that there
were two real properties in Jalajala owned by Francisco de Borja, one of
72.038 sq. m., assessed at P44,600, and a much bigger one of 1,357.260.70
sq. m., which is evidently the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion). To which of
these lands did the affidavit of Francisco de Borja (Exhibit "F") refer to? In
addition, Francisco's characterization of the land as "mi terreno personal y
exclusivo" is plainly self-serving, and not admissible in the absence of cross
examination.
It may be true that the inventories relied upon by defendant-appellant
(Exhibits "2", "3", "4" and "7") are not conclusive on the conjugal character
of the property in question; but as already noted, they are clear admissions
against the pecuniary interest of the declarants, Francisco de Borja and his
executor-widow, Tasiana Ongsingco, and as such of much greater probative
weight than the self-serving statement of Francisco (Exhibit "F"). Plainly, the
legal presumption in favor of the conjugal character of the Hacienda de
Jalajala (Poblacion) now in dispute has not been rebutted but actually
confirmed by proof. Hence, the appealed order should be reversed and the
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) declared property of the conjugal
partnership of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco.
No error having been assigned against the ruling of the lower court
that claims for damages should be ventilated in the corresponding special
proceedings for the settlement of the estates of the deceased, the same
requires no pronouncement from this Court.

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.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Barredo,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., did not take part.

Footnotes
1. She died during the pendency of these appeals, being substituted by Atty.
Luis Panaguiton, Jr., administrator of her estate (S. C. Resolution, 27 February
1970).

2. Annex A, Record on Appeal, GR. No. L-28040, pp. 16-21.

3. Also: Osorio vs. Osorio Steamship Co., 41 Phil. 531; Baun vs. Heirs of Baun,
53 Phil. 654; Barretto vs. Tuason, 59 Phil. 845; Cuevas vs. Abesamis, 71 Phil.
147; Jayme vs. Gamboa, 75 Phil. 479; Iballe vs. Po.
4. Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 279; Jakosalem vs. Rafols, 73 Phil. 628.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com