G.R. No. L-28040, L-28568, L-28611, August 18, 1972
Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, et al. vs. Tasiana Vda. de De Borja, et al.

FACTS

These consolidated cases stem from protracted litigation over the estates of spouses Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. Upon Josefa’s death, her will was probated, and Francisco, later succeeded by their son Jose, administered her estate. After Francisco’s death, Tasiana Ongsingco claimed to be his second wife and initiated testate proceedings for his estate. The validity of this second marriage was contested, leading to multiple lawsuits. To end the litigation, Jose de Borja (as administrator of Josefa’s estate and as an heir) and Tasiana executed a compromise agreement in 1963. Its key terms were the sale of the “Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion” and a P800,000 payment to Tasiana in full settlement of her claims to both estates.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch I), presiding over Josefa’s estate, approved the compromise. However, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Branch II), handling Francisco’s estate, disapproved it. Simultaneously, the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch X), in a separate civil case, ruled that the Hacienda was Francisco’s exclusive separate property, not conjugal with Josefa, and thus belonged solely to his estate.

ISSUE

The core issue is the correct characterization of the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion: Is it the exclusive property of Francisco de Borja or is it an asset of the conjugal partnership with his first wife, Josefa Tangco? This determination controls the validity of the compromise agreement, which was predicated on the property being part of Josefa’s estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the rulings in L-28568 and L-28611 and affirmed the order in L-28040. It declared the Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion as conjugal property of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. The legal presumption under the Civil Code is that property acquired during marriage is conjugal. The burden to prove it as separate property lies with the party claiming exclusivity. Tasiana (appellant in L-28040) failed to rebut this presumption.
The Court found the evidence for separate ownership weak and unreliable. Testimony from Gregorio de Borja on the property’s acquisition was deemed artificial and uncorroborated. An affidavit by Francisco calling it his “personal and exclusive” terrain was self-serving and inadmissible without cross-examination. Conversely, inventories (Exhibits 3 and 4) presented by Jose de Borja, filed by Francisco and later by Tasiana as administratrix, listed the Hacienda without specifying it as separate property. These inventories constituted admissions against the pecuniary interest of the declarants (Francisco and Tasiana) and carried significant probative weight, confirming the conjugal character. Therefore, the Hacienda belonged to the conjugal partnership and formed part of Josefa Tangco’s estate. Consequently, the compromise agreement dealing with this asset was valid, and its approval by the Rizal court (Branch I) in Josefa’s estate proceeding was proper.