G.R. No.

L-28040 August 18, 1972 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,
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO, JOSE Administrator".

DE BORJA, administrator-appellee; JOSE DE

BORJA, as administrator, CAYETANO DE Case No. L-28568 is an appeal by administrator
BORJA, MATILDE DE BORJA and CRISANTO DE Jose Borja from the disapproval of the same
BORJA (deceased) as Children of Josefa compromise agreement by the Court of First
Tangco, appellees, Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch II, in its Special
vs. Proceeding No. 832, entitled, "Testate Estate of
TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, Special Francisco de Borja, Tasiana O. Vda. de de Borja,
Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Francisco Special Administratrix".
de Borja, appellant. .
And Case No. L-28611 is an appeal by
G.R. No L-28568 August 18, 1972 administrator Jose de Borja from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch X, in its Civil
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO Case No. 7452, declaring the Hacienda Jalajala
DE BORJA, TASIANA O. VDA. DE DE BORJA, Poblacion, which is the main object of the aforesaid
special Administratrix appellee, compromise agreement, as the separate and
vs. exclusive property of the late Francisco de Borja
JOSE DE BORJA, oppositor-appellant. 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
G.R. No. L-28611 August 18, 1972
under administrator in Special Proceeding No. 832
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch
TASIANA 0. VDA. DE BORJA, as Administratrix II.
of the Testate Estate of the late Francisco de
Borja, plaintiff-appellee,
It is uncontested that Francisco de Borja, upon the
vs.
death of his wife Josefa Tangco on 6 October 1940,
JOSE DE BORJA, as Administrator of the
filed a petition for the probate of her will which was
Testate Estate of the late Josefa
docketed as Special Proceeding No. R-7866 of the
Tangco, defendant-appellant.
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will
was probated on 2 April 1941. In 1946, Francisco de
L-28040 Borja was appointed executor and administrator: in
1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed co-
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for administrator- administrator. When Francisco died, on 14 April
appellee. 1954, Jose became the sole administrator of the
testate estate of his mother, Josefa Tangco. While a
Quiogue & Quiogue for appellee Matilde de Borja. widower Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto
himself a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon
Andres Matias for appellee Cayetano de Borja. Francisco's death, Tasiana instituted testate
proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Sevilla & Aquino for appellant. Ecija, where, in 1955, she was appointed special
administratrix. The validity of Tasiana's marriage to
L-28568 Francisco was questioned in said proceeding.

Sevilla & Aquino for special administratrix-appellee. The relationship between the children of the first
marriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has been plagued
with several court suits and counter-suits; including
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for oppositor-appellant.
the three cases at bar, some eighteen (18) cases
remain pending determination in the courts. The
L-28611 testate estate of Josefa Tangco alone has been
unsettled for more than a quarter of a century. In
Sevilla & Aquino for plaintiff-appellee. order to put an end to all these litigations, a
compromise agreement was entered into on 12
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir and David Gueverra for October 1963,  by and between "[T]he heir and son
2

defendant-appellant. 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
REYES, J.B.L., J.:p second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de
Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton
Of these cases, the first, numbered L-28040 is an appeal by Tasiana Jr." The terms and conditions of the compromise
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, special administratrix of the testate estate agreement are as follows:
AGREEMENT by Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter
Vivos or Mortis Causa or purportedly conveyed to
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and her for consideration or otherwise. The funds for this
between payment shall be taken from and shall depend upon
the receipt of full payment of the proceeds of the
The heir and son of Francisco de Borja by his first sale of Jalajala, "Poblacion."
marriage, namely, Jose de Borja personally and as
administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa 3. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja hereby
Tangco, assumes payment of that particular obligation
incurred by the late Francisco de Borja in favor of
AND the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, now
Development Bank of the Philippines, amounting to
approximately P30,000.00 and also assumes
The heir and surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja
payment of her 1/5 share of the Estate and
by his second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda.
Inheritance taxes on the Estate of the late Francisco
de Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis
de Borja or the sum of P3,500.00, more or less,
Panaguiton Jr.
which shall be deducted by the buyer of Jalajala,
"Poblacion" from the payment to be made to
WITNESSETH Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja under paragraph
2 of this Agreement and paid directly to the
THAT it is the mutual desire of all the parties herein Development Bank of the Philippines and the heirs-
terminate and settle, with finality, the various court children of Francisco de Borja.
litigations, controversies, claims, counterclaims,
etc., between them in connection with the 4. Thereafter, the buyer of Jalajala "Poblacion" is
administration, settlement, partition, adjudication hereby authorized to pay directly to Tasiana
and distribution of the assets as well as liabilities of Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the balance of the
the estates of Francisco de Borja and Josefa payment due her under paragraph 2 of this
Tangco, first spouse of Francisco de Borja. Agreement (approximately P766,500.00) and issue
in the name of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
THAT with this end in view, the parties herein have Borja, corresponding certified checks/treasury
agreed voluntarily and without any reservations to warrants, who, in turn, will issue the corresponding
enter into and execute this agreement under the receipt to Jose de Borja.
following terms and conditions:
5. In consideration of above payment to Tasiana
1. That the parties agree to sell the Poblacion Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, Jose de Borja
portion of the Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala, personally and as administrator of the Testate
Rizal, presently under administration in the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, and Tasiana Ongsingco
Estate of Josefa Tangco (Sp. Proc. No. 7866, Vda. de de Borja, for themselves and for their heirs,
Rizal), more specifically described as follows: successors, executors, administrators, and assigns,
hereby forever mutually renounce, withdraw, waive,
Linda al Norte con el Rio Puwang que la separa de remise, release and discharge any and all manner
la jurisdiccion del Municipio de Pililla de la Provincia of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits,
de Rizal, y con el pico del Monte Zambrano; al debts, sum or sums of money, accounts, damages,
Oeste con Laguna de Bay; por el Sur con los claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity,
herederos de Marcelo de Borja; y por el Este con which they ever had, or now have or may have
los terrenos de la Familia Maronilla with a against each other, more specifically Sp.
segregated area of approximately 1,313 hectares at Proceedings Nos. 7866 and 1955, CFI-Rizal, and
the amount of P0.30 per square meter. Sp. Proc. No. 832-Nueva Ecija, Civil Case No.
3033, CFI Nueva Ecija and Civil Case No. 7452-
2. That Jose de Borja agrees and obligates himself CFI, Rizal, as well as the case filed against Manuel
to pay Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja the total Quijal for perjury with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal,
amount of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos the intention being to completely, absolutely and
(P800,000) Philippine Currency, in cash, which finally release each other, their heirs, successors,
represent P200,000 as his share in the payment and assigns, from any and all liability, arising wholly
and P600,000 as pro-rata shares of the heirs or partially, directly or indirectly, from the
Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all surnamed de administration, settlement, and distribution of the
Borja and this shall be considered as full and assets as well as liabilities of the estates of
complete payment and settlement of her hereditary Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, first spouse
share in the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as of Francisco de Borja, and lastly, Tasiana
well as the estate of Josefa Tangco, Sp. Proc. No. Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja expressly and
832-Nueva Ecija and Sp. Proc. No. 7866-Rizal, specifically renounce absolutely her rights as heir
respectively, and to any properties bequeathed or over any hereditary share in the estate of Francisco
devised in her favor by the late Francisco de Borja de Borja.
6. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon upon the facts that "(if) the decedent left no will and
receipt of the payment under paragraph 4 hereof, no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors
shall deliver to the heir Jose de Borja all the papers, are represented by their judicial and legal
titles and documents belonging to Francisco de representatives ..." The will of Francisco de Borja
Borja which are in her possession and said heir having been submitted to the Nueva Ecija Court and
Jose de Borja shall issue in turn the corresponding still pending probate when the 1963 agreement was
receive thereof. made, those circumstances, it is argued, bar the
validity of the agreement.
7. That this agreement shall take effect only upon
the fulfillment of the sale of the properties Upon the other hand, in claiming the validity of the
mentioned under paragraph 1 of this agreement and compromise agreement, Jose de Borja stresses that
upon receipt of the total and full payment of the at the time it was entered into, on 12 October 1963,
proceeds of the sale of the Jalajala property the governing provision was Section 1, Rule 74 of
"Poblacion", otherwise, the non-fulfillment of the the original Rules of Court of 1940, which allowed
said sale will render this instrument NULL AND the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of a
VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT THEREAFTER. deceased person regardless of whether he left a will
or not. He also relies on the dissenting opinion of
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have Justice Moran, in Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil.
her unto set their hands in the City of Manila, 479, wherein was expressed the view that if the
Philippines, the 12th of October, 1963. parties have already divided the estate in
accordance with a decedent's will, the probate of the
On 16 May 1966, Jose de Borja submitted for Court will is a useless ceremony; and if they have divided
approval the agreement of 12 October 1963 to the the estate in a different manner, the probate of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, in Special will is worse than useless.
Proceeding No. R-7866; and again, on 8 August
1966, to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara, ante, is not
in Special Proceeding No. 832. Tasiana Ongsingco applicable to the case at bar. This is apparent from
Vda. de de Borja opposed in both instances. The an examination of the terms of the agreement
Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, between Jose de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco.
but the Nueva Ecija court declared it void and Paragraph 2 of said agreement specifically
unenforceable. Special administratrix Tasiana stipulates that the sum of P800,000 payable to
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja appealed the Rizal Tasiana Ongsingco —
Court's order of approval (now Supreme Court G.R.
case No. L-28040), while administrator Jose de shall be considered as full — complete payment —
Borja appealed the order of disapproval (G.R. case settlement of her hereditary share in the estate of
No. L-28568) by the Court of First Instance of the late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate of
Nueva Ecija. Josefa Tangco, ... and to any properties bequeathed
or devised in her favor by the late Francisco de
The genuineness and due execution of the Borja by Last Will and Testament or by Donation
compromised agreement of 12 October 1963 is not Inter Vivos or Mortis Causa or purportedly conveyed
disputed, but its validity is, nevertheless, attacked to her for consideration or otherwise.
by Tasiana Ongsingco on the ground that: (1) the
heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement This provision evidences beyond doubt that the
without first probating the will of Francisco de Borja; ruling in the Guevara case is not applicable to the
(2) that the same involves a compromise on the cases at bar. There was here no attempt to settle or
validity of the marriage between Francisco de Borja distribute the estate of Francisco de Borja among
and Tasiana Ongsingco; and (3) that even if it were the heirs thereto before the probate of his will. The
valid, it has ceased to have force and effect. clear object of the contract was merely the
conveyance by Tasiana Ongsingco of any and all
In assailing the validity of the agreement of 12 her individual share and interest, actual or eventual
October 1963, Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate in the estate of Francisco de Borja and Josefa
Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this Court's decision Tangco. There is no stipulation as to any other
in Guevara vs. Guevara. 74 Phil. 479, wherein the claimant, creditor or legatee. And as a hereditary
Court's majority held the view that the presentation share in a decedent's estate is transmitted or vested
of a will for probate is mandatory and that the immediately from the moment of the death of
settlement and distribution of an estate on the basis such causante or predecessor in interest (Civil Code
of intestacy when the decedent left a will, is against of the Philippines, Art. 777)  there is no legal bar to a
3

the law and public policy. It is likewise pointed out successor (with requisite contracting capacity)
by appellant Tasiana Ongsingco that Section 1 of disposing of her or his hereditary share immediately
Rule 74 of the Revised Rules explicitly conditions after such death, even if the actual extent of such
the validity of an extrajudicial settlement of a share is not determined until the subsequent
decedent's estate by agreement between heirs, liquidation of the estate.  Of course, the effect of
4

such alienation is to be deemed limited to what is

ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, III. That this agreement shall take effect only upon
the aleatory character of the contract does not affect the consummation of the sale of the property
the validity of the transaction; neither does the mentioned herein and upon receipt of the total and
coetaneous agreement that the numerous litigations full payment of the proceeds of the sale by the
between the parties (the approving order of the herein owner heirs-children of Francisco de Borja,
Rizal Court enumerates fourteen of them, Rec. App. namely, Crisanto, Cayetano and Matilde, all
pp. 79-82) are to be considered settled and should surnamed de Borja; Provided that if no sale of the
be dismissed, although such stipulation, as noted by said property mentioned herein is consummated, or
the Rizal Court, gives the contract the character of a the non-receipt of the purchase price thereof by the
compromise that the law favors, for obvious said owners within the period of sixty (60) days from
reasons, if only because it serves to avoid a the date hereof, this agreement will become null and
multiplicity of suits. void and of no further effect.

It is likewise worthy of note in this connection that as Ongsingco's argument loses validity when it is
the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana considered that Jose de Borja was not a party to
Ongsingco was his compulsory heir under article this particular contract (Annex 1), and that the same
995 et seq. of the present Civil Code. Wherefore, appears not to have been finalized, since it bears no
barring unworthiness or valid disinheritance, her date, the day being left blank "this — day of October
successional interest existed independent of 1963"; and while signed by the parties, it was not
Francisco de Borja's last will and testament and notarized, although plainly intended to be so done,
would exist even if such will were not probated at since it carries a proposed notarial ratification
all. Thus, the prerequisite of a previous probate of clause. Furthermore, the compromise contract with
the will, as established in the Guevara and Jose de Borja (Annex A), provides in its par. 2
analogous cases, can not apply to the case of heretofore transcribed that of the total consideration
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja. of P800, 000 to be paid to Ongsingco, P600,000
represent the "prorata share of the heirs Crisanto,
Since the compromise contract Annex A was Cayetano and Matilde all surnamed de Borja" which
entered into by and between "Jose de Borja corresponds to the consideration of P600,000
personally and as administrator of the Testate recited in Annex 1, and that circumstance is proof
Estate of Josefa Tangco" on the one hand, and on that the duly notarized contract entered into wit Jose
the other, "the heir and surviving spouse of de Borja under date 12 October 1963 (Annex A),
Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana was designed to absorb and supersede the
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja", it is clear that the separate unformalize agreement with the other
transaction was binding on both in their individual three Borja heirs. Hence, the 60 days resolutory
capacities, upon the perfection of the contract, even term in the contract with the latter (Annex 1) not
without previous authority of the Court to enter into being repeated in Annex A, can not apply to the
the same. The only difference between an formal compromise with Jose de Borja. It is
extrajudicial compromise and one that is submitted moreover manifest that the stipulation that the sale
and approved by the Court, is that the latter can be of the Hacienda de Jalajala was to be made within
enforced by execution proceedings. Art. 2037 of the sixty days from the date of the agreement with Jose
Civil Code is explicit on the point: de Borja's co-heirs (Annex 1) was plainly omitted in
Annex A as improper and ineffective, since the
8. Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) that was to be
effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall sold to raise the P800,000 to be paid to Ongsingco
be no execution except in compliance with a judicial for her share formed part of the estate of Francisco
compromise. 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
It is argued by Tasiana Ongsingco that while the
compromise it fixed a term of 120 days counted
agreement Annex A expressed no definite period for
from the finality of the order now under appeal, for
its performance, the same was intended to have a
the carrying out by the parties for the terms of the
resolutory period of 60 days for its effectiveness. In
contract.
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 This brings us to the plea that the Court of First
the brothers and sister of Jose de Borja, to wit, Instance of Rizal had no jurisdiction to approve the
Crisanto, Matilde and Cayetano, all surnamed de compromise with Jose de Borja (Annex A) because
Borja, except that the consideration was fixed at Tasiana Ongsingco was not an heir in the estate of
P600,000 (Opposition, Annex/Rec. of Appeal, L- Josefa Tangco pending settlement in the Rizal
28040, pp. 39- 46) and which contained the Court, but she was an heir of Francisco de Borja,
following clause: 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 restated in the opposition to the Court's approval of
the estate itself; and as already shown, that Annex "A" (Record on Appeal, L-20840, page 23):
eventual share she owned from the time of that the same was invalid because of the lapse of
Francisco's death and the Court of Nueva Ecija the allegedly intended resolutory period of 60 days
could not bar her selling it. As owner of her and because the contract was not preceded by the
undivided hereditary share, Tasiana could dispose probate of Francisco de Borja's will, as required by
of it in favor of whomsoever she chose. Such this Court's Guevarra vs. Guevara ruling; that
alienation is expressly recognized and provided for Annex "A" involved a compromise affecting
by article 1088 of the present Civil Code: Ongsingco's status as wife and widow of Francisco
de Borja, etc., all of which objections have been
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary already discussed. It was natural that in view of the
rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of widow's attitude, Jose de Borja should attempt to
the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the reach a new settlement or novatory agreement
purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the before seeking judicial sanction and enforcement of
sale, provided they do so within the period of one Annex "A", since the latter step might ultimately
month from the time they were notified in writing of entail a longer delay in attaining final remedy. That
the sale of the vendor. the attempt to reach another settlement failed is
apparent from the letter of Ongsingco's counsel to
If a sale of a hereditary right can be made to a Jose de Borja quoted in pages 35-36 of the brief for
stranger, then a fortiori sale thereof to a coheir appellant Ongsingco in G.R. No. 28040; and it is
could not be forbidden. 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
Tasiana Ongsingco further argues that her contract
compromise. But the inability to reach a novatory
with Jose de Borja (Annex "A") is void because it
accord can not invalidate the original compromise
amounts to a compromise as to her status and
(Annex "A") and justifies the act of Jose de Borja in
marriage with the late Francisco de Borja. The point
finally seeking a court order for its approval and
is without merit, for the very opening paragraph of
enforcement from the Court of First Instance of
the agreement with Jose de Borja (Annex "A")
Rizal, which, as heretofore described, decreed that
describes her as "the heir and surviving spouse of
the agreement be ultimately performed within 120
Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana
days from the finality of the order, now under
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja", which is in itself
appeal.
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 We conclude that in so doing, the Rizal court acted
surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja was only in accordance with law, and, therefore, its order
made in consideration of the cession of her should be upheld, while the contrary resolution of
hereditary rights. the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija should be,
and is, reversed.
It is finally charged by appellant Ongsingco, as well
as by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in In her brief, Tasiana Ongsingco also pleads that the
its order of 21 September 1964, in Special time elapsed in the appeal has affected her
Proceedings No. 832 (Amended Record on Appeal unfavorably, in that while the purchasing power of
in L-28568, page 157), that the compromise the agreed price of P800,000 has diminished, the
agreement of 13 October 1963 (Annex "A") had value of the Jalajala property has increased. But the
been abandoned, as shown by the fact that, after its fact is that her delay in receiving the payment of the
execution, the Court of First Instance of Nueva agreed price for her hereditary interest was primarily
Ecija, in its order of 21 September 1964, had due to her attempts to nullify the agreement (Annex
declared that "no amicable settlement had been "A") she had formally entered into with the advice of
arrived at by the parties", and that Jose de Borja her counsel, Attorney Panaguiton. And as to the
himself, in a motion of 17 June 1964, had stated devaluation de facto of our currency, what We said
that the proposed amicable settlement "had failed to in Dizon Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561, 30 June 1970,
materialize". 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
It is difficult to believe, however, that the amicable
properties of the estate", is particularly opposite in
settlement referred to in the order and motion
the present case.
above-mentioned was the compromise agreement
of 13 October 1963, which already had been
formally signed and executed by the parties and Coming now to Case G.R. No. L-28611, the issue is
duly notarized. What the record discloses is that whether the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion),
some time after its formalization, Ongsingco had concededly acquired by Francisco de Borja during
unilaterally attempted to back out from the his marriage to his first wife, Josefa Tangco, is the
compromise agreement, pleading various reasons husband's private property (as contended by his
second spouse, Tasiana Ongsingco), or whether it
forms part of the conjugal (ganancial) partnership Defendant Jose de Borja further counterclaimed for
with Josefa Tangco. The Court of First Instance of damages, compensatory, moral and exemplary, as
Rizal (Judge Herminio Mariano, presiding) declared well as for attorney's fees.
that there was adequate evidence to overcome the
presumption in favor of its conjugal character After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, per
established by Article 160 of the Civil Code. Judge Herminio Mariano, held that the plaintiff had
adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the
We are of the opinion that this question as between presumption, and declared the Hacienda de Jalajala
Tasiana Ongsingco and Jose de Borja has become (Poblacion) to be the exclusive private property of
moot and academic, in view of the conclusion the late Francisco de Borja, and his Administratrix,
reached by this Court in the two preceding cases Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de Borja, to be entitled to
(G.R. No. L-28568), upholding as valid the cession its possession. Defendant Jose de Borja then
of Tasiana Ongsingco's eventual share in the estate appealed to this Court.
of her late husband, Francisco de Borja, for the sum
of P800,000 with the accompanying reciprocal quit- The evidence reveals, and the appealed order
claims between the parties. But as the question may admits, that the character of the Hacienda in
affect the rights of possible creditors and legatees, question as owned by the conjugal partnership De
its resolution is still imperative. Borja-Tangco was solemnly admitted by the late
Francisco de Borja no less than two times: first, in
It is undisputed that the Hacienda Jalajala, of the Reamended Inventory that, as executor of the
around 4,363 hectares, had been originally acquired estate of his deceased wife Josefa Tangco, he filed
jointly by Francisco de Borja, Bernardo de Borja and in the Special Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of
Marcelo de Borja and their title thereto was duly First Instance of Rizal on 23 July 1953 (Exhibit "2");
registered in their names as co-owners in Land and again, in the Reamended Accounting of the
Registration Case No. 528 of the province of Rizal, same date, also filed in the proceedings aforesaid
G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26403 (De Barjo vs. Jugo, 54 (Exhibit "7"). Similarly, the plaintiff Tasiana O. Vda.
Phil. 465). Subsequently, in 1931, the Hacienda was de Borja, herself, as oppositor in the Estate of
partitioned among the co-owners: the Punta section Josefa Tangco, submitted therein an inventory
went to Marcelo de Borja; the Bagombong section dated 7 September 1954 (Exhibit "3") listing the
to Bernardo de Borja, and the part in Jalajala proper Jalajala property among the "Conjugal Properties of
(Poblacion) corresponded to Francisco de Borja (V. the Spouses Francisco de Borja and Josefa
De Borja vs. De Borja 101 Phil. 911, 932). Tangco". And once more, Tasiana Ongsingco, as
administratrix of the Estate of Francisco de Borja, in
The lot allotted to Francisco was described as — Special Proceedings No. 832 of the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, submitted therein in
Una Parcela de terreno en Poblacion, Jalajala: N. December, 1955, an inventory wherein she listed
Puang River; E. Hermogena Romero; S. Heirs of the Jalajala Hacienda under the heading "Conjugal
Marcelo de Borja O. Laguna de Bay; containing an Property of the Deceased Spouses Francisco de
area of 13,488,870 sq. m. more or less, assessed at Borja and Josefa Tangco, which are in the
P297,410. (Record on Appeal, pages 7 and 105) possession of the Administrator of the Testate
Estate of the Deceased Josefa Tangco in Special
Proceedings No. 7866 of the Court of First Instance
On 20 November 1962, Tasiana O. Vda. de Borja,
of Rizal" (Exhibit "4").
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 Notwithstanding the four statements aforesaid, and
de Borja, in his capacity as Administrator of Josefa the fact that they are plain admissions against
Tangco (Francisco de Borja's first wife), seeking to interest made by both Francisco de Borja and the
have the Hacienda above described declared Administratrix of his estate, in the course of judicial
exclusive private property of Francisco, while in his proceedings in the Rizal and Nueva Ecija Courts,
answer defendant (now appellant) Jose de Borja supporting the legal presumption in favor of the
claimed that it was conjugal property of his parents conjugal community, the Court below declared that
(Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco), the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) was not
conformably to the presumption established by conjugal property, but the private exclusive property
Article 160 of the Philippine Civil Code (reproducing of the late Francisco de Borja. It did so on the
Article 1407 of the Civil Code of 1889), to the effect strength of the following evidences: (a) the sworn
that: statement by Francis de Borja on 6 August 1951
(Exhibit "F") that —
Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be He tomado possession del pedazo de terreno ya
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or delimitado (equivalente a 1/4 parte, 337 hectareas)
to the wife. adjunto a mi terreno personal y exclusivo (Poblacion
de Jalajala, Rizal).
and (b) the testimony of Gregorio de Borja, son of As to Francisco de Borja's affidavit, Exhibit "F", the
Bernardo de Borja, that the entire Hacienda had quoted portion thereof (ante, page 14) does not
been bought at a foreclosure sale for P40,100.00, of clearly demonstrate that the "mi terreno personal y
which amount P25,100 was contributed by Bernardo exclusivo (Poblacion de Jalajala, Rizal) " refers
de Borja and P15,000. by Marcelo de Borja; that precisely to the Hacienda in question. The
upon receipt of a subsequent demand from the inventories (Exhibits 3 and 4) disclose that there
provincial treasurer for realty taxes the sum of were two real properties in Jalajala owned by
P17,000, Marcelo told his brother Bernardo that Francisco de Borja, one of 72.038 sq. m., assessed
Francisco (son of Marcelo) wanted also to be a co- at P44,600, and a much bigger one of 1,357.260.70
owner, and upon Bernardo's assent to the proposal, sq. m., which is evidently the Hacienda de Jalajala
Marcelo issue a check for P17,000.00 to pay the (Poblacion). To which of these lands did the affidavit
back taxes and said that the amount would of Francisco de Borja (Exhibit "F") refer to? In
represent Francisco's contribution in the purchase of addition, Francisco's characterization of the land as
the Hacienda. The witness further testified that — "mi terreno personal y exclusivo" is plainly self-
serving, and not admissible in the absence of cross
Marcelo de Borja said that that money was examination.
entrusted to him by Francisco de Borja when he
was still a bachelor and which he derived from his It may be true that the inventories relied upon by
business transactions. (Hearing, 2 February 1965, defendant-appellant (Exhibits "2", "3", "4" and "7")
t.s.n., pages 13-15) (Emphasis supplied) are not conclusive on the conjugal character of the
property in question; but as already noted, they are
The Court below, reasoning that not only clear admissions against the pecuniary interest of
Francisco's sworn statement overweighed the the declarants, Francisco de Borja and his executor-
admissions in the inventories relied upon by widow, Tasiana Ongsingco, and as such of much
defendant-appellant Jose de Borja since probate greater probative weight than the self-serving
courts can not finally determine questions of statement of Francisco (Exhibit "F"). Plainly, the
ownership of inventoried property, but that the legal presumption in favor of the conjugal character
testimony of Gregorio de Borja showed that of the Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) now in
Francisco de Borja acquired his share of the original dispute has not been rebutted but actually
Hacienda with his private funds, for which reason confirmed by proof. Hence, the appealed order
that share can not be regarded as conjugal should be reversed and the Hacienda de Jalajala
partnership property, but as exclusive property of (Poblacion) declared property of the conjugal
the buyer, pursuant to Article 1396(4) of Civil Code partnership of Francisco de Borja and Josefa
of 1889 and Article 148(4) of the Civil Code of the Tangco.
Philippines.
No error having been assigned against the ruling of
The following shall be the exclusive property of each the lower court that claims for damages should be
spouse: ventilated in the corresponding special proceedings
for the settlement of the estates of the deceased,
xxx xxx xxx the same requires no pro announcement from this
Court.
(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of
the wife or of the husband. 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
We find the conclusions of the lower court to be
Cases Nos. L-28568 and L-28611 are reversed and
untenable. In the first place, witness Gregorio de
set aside. Costs against the appellant Tasiana
Borja's testimony as to the source of the money paid
Ongsingco Vda. de Borja in all three (3) cases.
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.