G.R. No. L-41171 July 23, 1987 INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE VITO BORROMEO, ATRO!

INIO BORROMEO-HERRERA, petitioner, vs. FORT"NATO BORROMEO #$% HON. FRAN!IS!O . B"RGOS, Ju%&' o( )*' !ou+) o( F,+-) I$-)#$.' o( !'/u, B+#$.* II, respondents. F#.)-0 Vito Borromeo, a widower and permanent resident of Cebu City, died in Paranaque, Rizal at the age of 88 years, without for ed heirs but leaving e!tensive properties in the provin e of Cebu. "ose "unquera filed with the Court of #irst $nstan e of Cebu a petition for the probate of a one page do ument as the last will and testament left by the said de eased, devising all his properties to %omas, #ortunato and &melia, all surnamed Borromeo, in equal and undivided shares, and designating "unquera as e!e utor thereof. %he do ument, drafted in 'panish, was allegedly signed and thumbmar(ed by the de eased in the presen e of Cornelio )andion o, *usebio Cabiluna, and #eli!berto +eonardo who a ted as witnesses. ,ppositions to the probate of the will were filed. &fter due trial, the probate do ument presented as the will of the de eased was a forgery. ourt held that the

%he testate pro eedings was onverted into an intestate pro eedings. 'everal parties ame before the ourt filing laims or petitions alleging themselves as heirs of the intestate estate of Vito Borromeo. %he ourt also ordered that the assets of the intestate estate of Vito Borromeo shall be divided into -./ and 0./ groups and distributed in equal and equitable shares among the / de lared intestate heirs. Respondent #ortunato Borromeo, who had earlier laimed as heir under the forged will, filed a motion before the trial ourt praying that he be de lared as one of the heirs of the de eased Vito Borromeo, alleging that he is an illegitimate son of the de eased and that in the de laration of heirs made by the trial ourt, he was omitted, in disregard of the law ma(ing him a for ed heir entitled to re eive a legitime li(e all other for ed heirs. &s an a (nowledged illegitimate hild, he stated that he was entitled to a legitime equal in every ase to four1fifths of the legitime of an a (nowledged natural hild. #inding that the motion of #ortunato Borromeo was already barred by the order of the ourt de laring the persons named therein as the legal heirs of the de eased Vito Borromeo, the ourt dismissed the motion. #ortunato Borromeo filed a motion for re onsideration. $n the memorandum he submitted to support his motion for re onsideration, #ortunato hanged the basis for his laim to a portion of the estate. 2e asserted and in orporated a 3aiver of 2ereditary Rights. $n the waiver, five of the nine heirs relinquished to #ortunato their shares in the disputed estate. %he motion was opposed on the ground that the trial ourt, a ting as a probate ourt, had no 4urisdi tion to ta(e ognizan e of the laim5 that respondent #ortunato Borromeo is estopped from asserting the waiver agreement5 that the waiver agreement is void as it was e!e uted before the de laration of heirs5 that the same is void having been e!e uted before the distribution of the estate and before the a eptan e of the inheritan e5 and that it is void ab initio and ine!istent for la ( of sub4e t matter. &fter due hearing, the trial ourt on luding that the five de lared heirs who signed the waiver agreement assigning their hereditary rights to #ortunato Borromeo had lost the same rights, de lared

the latter as entitled to 0./ of the estate of Vito Borromeo. $n the present petition, the petitioner see(s to annul and set aside the trial ourt6s order de laring respondent #ortunato Borromeo entitled to 0./ of the estate of Vito Borromeo. %he petitioner argues that the trial ourt had no 4urisdi tion to ta(e ognizan e of the laim of respondent #ortunato Borromeo be ause it is not a money laim against the de edent but a laim for properties, real and personal, whi h onstitute all of the shares of the heirs in the de edent6s estate, heirs who allegedly waived their rights in his favor. %he laim of the private respondent under the waiver agreement, a ording to the petitioner, may be li(ened to that of a reditor of the heirs whi h is improper. Respondent Borromeo asserts that sin e the waiver or renun iation of hereditary rights too( pla e after the ourt assumed 4urisdi tion over the properties of the estate it parta(es of the nature of a partition of the properties of the estate needing approval of the ourt be ause it was e!e uted in the ourse of the pro eedings. 2e further maintains that the probate ourt loses 4urisdi tion of the estate only after the payment of all the debts of the estate and the remaining estate is distributed to those entitled to the same. H'l%0 3ith respe t to the issue of 4urisdi tion, we hold that the trial ourt had 4urisdi tion to pass upon the validity of the waiver agreement. $t must be noted that in 'pe ial Pro eedings 7o. /891R the lower ourt disallowed the probate of the will and de lared it as fa(e. :pon appeal, this Court affirmed the de ision of the lower ourt on ;ar h <=, 8/9>, in ).R. 7o. +188-/8. 'ubsequently, several parties ame before the lower ourt filing laims or petitions alleging themselves as heirs of the intestate estate of Vito Borromeo. 3e see no impediment to the trial ourt in e!er ising 4urisdi tion and trying the said laims or petitions. ;oreover, the 4urisdi tion of the trial ourt e!tends to matters in idental and ollateral to the e!er ise of its re ognized powers in handling the settlement of the estate. $n view of the foregoing, the questioned order of the trial ourt dated ?e ember @-, 8/>-, is hereby '*% &'$?*. $n ).R. 7o. -88>8, the order of the respondent 4udge dated ?e ember @-, 8/>-, de laring the respondent entitled to 0./ of the estate of the late Vito Borromeo and the order dated "uly >, 8/>0, denying the petitioner6s motion for re onsideration of the aforementioned order are hereby '*% &'$?* for being 7:++ and V,$?5 ', ,R?*R*?.