8.A Gallanosa v.

Arcangel
G.R. No. L-29300, 21 June 1978, 83 SCRA 675

FACTS:

Florentino Gallanosa executed a will in 1938 when he was 80 years old. He owned 61 parcels of and
at that time. He died in 1939 childless and survived by his brother Leon. In his will, he bequethed his
1/2 share of the conjugal estate to his second wife Tecla and if she predecease him (as what occurred),
the said share shall be assigned to the spouses Gallanosa (Pedro & Corazon). Pedro is Tecla’s son
by her 1st marriage. He also gave 3 parcels of land to Adolfo, his protege.

The said will was admitted to probate with Gallanosa as executor. In 1952, thjhe legal heirs filed an
action for the recovery of said 61 parcels of land. The action was dismissed on the ground of res
judicata. Then, 28 years after probate, another acton agaisnt Gallanosa for annulment of the will,
recovery of the lands alleging fraud and deceit, was filed. As a result, the lower court set aide the 1939
decree of probate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a will which has been probated may still be annulled.

RULING:

No. A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will. Due execution means
that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution and that he was not
acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence. Finally, that it was executed in accordance
with the formalities provided by law.

The period for seeking relief under Rule 38 has already expired, hence the judgment may only be set
aside on the grounds of, 1) lack of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law, and 2) the judgment was
obtained by means of extrinsic collateral fraud (which must be filed within 4 years from the discovery).
Finally, Art. 1410 cannot apply to wills and testament.

8.M. Testate Estate of Tangco V. Vda De Borja

G.R. No. L-28040, L-28568, L-28611 August 18, 1972

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 of Hacienda Jalajala Poblacion, 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, which includes:

selling the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala properties situated in Jalajala,

Jose de Borja obligating himself to pay Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja P800,000,

Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja hereby assuming payment of that particular obligation incurred by
the late Francisco de Borja in favor of Development Bank of the Philippines,

the buyer of Jalajala "Poblacion" is hereby authorized to pay directly to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de
Borja the balance of the payment due,

they mutually renounce waive any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits,
debts, in law or in equity, which they ever had, or now have or may have against each other,

Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja, upon receipt of the payment under, shall deliver to the heir Jose de
Borja all the papers, titles and documents belonging to Francisco de Borja which are in her possession

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.

The Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva Ecija court declared it void and
unenforceable. Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja appealed the Rizal Court's order of approval, while
Jose de Borja appealed the order of disapproval by the Court of First Instance 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.

Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija relied on the Court's decision in Guevara vs.
Guevara. 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.

However, the doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara is not applicable to the case at bar. 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 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
immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the
subsequent liquidation of the estate.

In addition, as the surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was his compulsory heir
Wherefore, 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, cannot apply to the case of Tasiana
Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.

The Rizal court’s decision was upheld, while the contrary resolution of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija was reversed.