ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LIM TINGEO. FELIPE ALKUINO LIM PANG, PETITIONER, VS. UY PIAN NG SHUN AND ORENCIO RAMON LIM TINGCO, APPELLANTS; JUSTINA OLONDRES ET AL., APPELLEES.

This appeal is prosecuted on behalf of Uy Pian Ng Shun and her
minor son, Ramon Lim Tingco, in the matter of the will of Mateo Lim Tingco,
deceased, for the purpose of reversing an order of the Court of First Instance
of Leyte, dated October 29, 1927, excluding the appellant Uy Pian Ng Shun from
sharing in the estate of the testator, and declaring that Ramon, as an
illegitimate child, is entitled only to support from the estate and that the
appellees, Justina Olondres and Balbina Lim Tingco, are entitled to share in the
same estate respectively as widow and recognized natural daughter of the
testator.

The testator, Mateo Lim Tingco, of Chinese nationality, came to
the Philippine Islands some forty-five or fifty years ago, making his home in
the municipality of Baybay, Province of Leyte, where he lived until his death on
April 18, 1927. In the early years of his abode in Baybay he became the father
of a daughter, Balbina Lim Tingco, now married to Benigno Barnes, and sometimes
called Imbina Barnes. This daughter, as the trial court found, was recognized in
life by Lim Tingco as his natural daughter.

On November 27, 1886, a marriage was duly celebrated by Mateo
Lim Tingco and Justina Olondres, otherwise known in the record as Angela
Olondres and Martina Londres. The pair lived together for many years as husband
and wife, but no children resulted from the union; and in course of time Lim
Tingco formed an irregular connection with a Chinese woman, the appellant, Uy
Pian Ng Shun, who usurped the place of the lawful wife, Justina Olondres.
Thereupon Justina, becoming disgusted with her husband’s infidelity, abandoned
the conjugal hearth and went to live elsewhere. As a result of the irregular
connection between Lim Tingco and Uy Pian a son, named Ramon, was born. This boy
is now some 8 or 9 years of age and is the minor appellant in this case.

On October 2, 1925, Lim Tingco executed a will in due form of
law at Baybay, Leyte, in which he stated that he was married to Uy Pian Ng Shun,
and declared that he wanted his property to be shared by her and their son Ramon
as his only heirs. After Lim Tingco’s death this will was duly admitted to
probate on July 5, 1927, without opposition from any source.

The fact that no opposition was interposed to the probate of
this will by Justina Olondres or Balbina Barnes finds its explanation, no doubt,
in the fact that, a few days before the petition for the probate of the will was
filed, the adult parties interested in the division of Lim Tingco’s property had
gotten together and compromised their claims to said estate. For the
effectuation of this purpose formal documents were drawn up and acknowledged
before a notary public by Uy Pian Ng Shun, acting upon her own account and as
representative of her son Ramon, and by Justina Olondres and Balbina Lim Tingco,
with whom was joined the latter’s husband, Benigno Barnes. The general purport
of these documents is that Uy Pian Ng Shun assigned a part of the property
belonging to the estate of Mateo Lim Tingco to Justina Olondres and another part
to Balbina (or Imbina), wife of Benigno Barnes. In consideration of the portions
so received Justina Olondres and Balbina Lim Tingco in turn renounced whatever
rights they might have had in the estate of the deceased, and they agreed to
make no claim in court with respect thereto. The portions conceded to Justina
Olondres and Balbina Lim Tinsrco by this agreement were of respectable size,
amounting together to more than P3,000.

Notwithstanding the making of this compromise and the
acceptance by Justina Olondres and Balbina Lim Tingco of the portions assigned
to them respectively, Balbina and her husband appeared in court on July 6, 1927,
and filed what may be described as an opposition, or intervention, in which they
impugned the intrinsic provisions of the will with respect to the right of Uy
Pian Ng Shun, as widow, and Ramon Lim Tingco, as heir, and asked the court to
ascertain who were the true heirs of Mateo Lim Tingco, regardless of the
statements contained in the will, and to make declaration accordingly. To this
opposition, or intervention, a reply was interposed by Uy Pian Ng Shun, in which
she relied upon the compromise agreement, already mentioned. The cause was then
set for hearing upon the matter of the determination of heirs, whereupon Justina
Olondres intervened, making common cause with Balbina. In her reply to this
intervention Uy Pian Ng Shun again set up the compromise agreement. Upon hearing
the cause the trial court, as stated in the first paragraph of this opinion,
found that Justina Olondres, as the widow of the deceased, and Balbina Lim
Tingco, as a recognized natural daughter, were alone entitled to share in, the
inheritance of the deceased.

We note that no extrinsic proof was introduced by the appellant
Uy Pian Ng Shun for the purpose of establishing her status as wife. Upon this
point reliance is placed by her exclusively on the declaration of the testator,
contained in his will, that she was his wife at the time the will was made. But
while admissible as prima facie proof in favor of the appellant, this statement
is not conclusive; and when it is demonstrated, as in this case, that Justina
Olondres was the true wife of the decedent by virtue of an undissolved canonical
marriage, of date anterior to the creation of the relation between Uy Pian and
the decedent, the statement in the will must be considered rebutted. The
circumstance that the will had been admitted to probate is conclusive only of
the due execution of the will; and the disposition of the property made in the
will is always open to question with respect to the intrinsic legality of the
disposition (Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855).

But although Uy Pian Ng Shun and her son Ramon are thus
excluded from talcing under the will in so far as the disposition in their favor
would prejudice the rights of the widow and the recognized daughter, it should
not escape notice that the testamentary provision would have complete efficacy
in so far as concerns the portion of the estate of the decedent which is of free
disposition. It was therefore erroneous on the part of the court to declare that
Uy Pian Ng Shun and her son could not take anything under the will.

But consideration of the relative proportions in which the four
litigants would have been entitled to share under the will of Lim Tingco becomes
an academic question, in view of the compromise agreement to which reference has
already been made.

The effect of this agreement undoubtedly is to estop Justina
Olondres and Balbina Lim Tingco from claiming any further share in the estate of
the deceased. The trial court appears to have been of the opinion that the time
had not yet come to consider the effect of this agreement. But it is never too
soon for the court to give effect to binding contracts when issues are properly
raised with respect thereto. In the case before us the appellants rely upon said
agreement as a special defense to the interventions of the appellees; and it
cannot be disposed of by merely ignoring it. The appellees were competent to
bind themselves by said agreement, in conformity with its provisions they
accepted a fair share of the estate in full satisfaction of their claims, and no
suggestion has been made that the contract was vitiated by fraud or error. The
consequence is that the appellees must be excluded from further participation in
the property. Whatever weakness may have been inherent in the appellants’ title,
that defect has been cured, as against the appellees, by said agreement.

It becomes our duty therefore to reverse the appealed decision
and to declare that the appellant Uy Pian Ng Shun and her son, Ramon lam Tingco,
are the only persons entitled to participate in the testate estate of Mateo Lim
Tingco, the same to be shared by them in the proportions contemplated in the
will. So ordered, without pronouncement as to costs.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.