You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 ISSUE: Whether or not Inciong should be held liable.

possess the three theaters in question and to terminate said
While the case was pending, Rogero (P) died and her estate was agreement. The trial court arrived at the conclusions that Sy is not
substituted as plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that the entitled to the reformation of the lease agreement and further
CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF document was valid and Rogero (P) was a surety of the debtor. concluded that Sy was not entitled to the writ of preliminary injunction
APPEALS, REMEDIOS FRANCO, FRANCISCO N. LOPEZ, issued in his favor after the commencement of the action and that the
CECILIA P. VDA. DE LOPEZ, REDAN LOPEZ AND REMARENE Jaucian (D) filed a claim against the estate of Rogero (P). Francisco injunction bond filed by Sy is liable for whatever damages OVEC may
HELD: Yes. Inciong is considering himself as a guarantor in the
LOPEZ, respondents. Querol (P), the administrator of Rogero's (P) estate, demanded a have suffered by reason of the injunction.
promissory note. And he was basing his argument based on Article
judgment from the court of his claim against Dayandante that he is
2080 of the Civil Code which provides that guarantors are released
indeed insolvent and that Jaucian (D) exhausted all means to collect Issue:
from their obligations if the creditors shall release their debtors. It is to from the principal debtor. Whether or not Sy is entitled to reformation of the lease agreement.
be noted however that Inciong did not sign the promissory note as a
guarantor. He signed it as a solidary co-maker. Issues: Is the surety solidary liable with the principal debtor? May the Held:
In 1939, the late Don Ramon Lopez was a member of the board of creditor sue a "surety" without exhausting all means against the
trustees of Central Philippine University when he executed a donation primary debtor? No. The repossession of the leased premises by OVEC after the
to the school, stating that the land must be for exclusive use of a cancellation and termination of the lease was in accordance with the
medical college. 50 years later, The heirs of Ramon Lopez filed an Ruling: Yes. Rogero (P), though a surety for Dayandante, was stipulation of the parties in the said agreement and the law applicable
action to annul the donation, stating the failure of the school to A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor nevertheless bound jointly and severally with him in the obligation. thereto and that the consequent forfeiture of Sy's cash deposit in
construct the medical college over the land. RTC ruled in favor of does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. favor of OVEC was clearly agreed upon by them in the lease
respondents, which the CA affirmed. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor and a fiador in agreement. The court found no ambiguity in the provisions of the
Article 1822 of the Civil Code provides:
solidum (surety). The latter, outside of the liability he assumes to pay lease agreement. It held that the provisions are fair and reasonable
ISSUE: Whether there is a resolutory condition and therefore, should be respected and enforced as the law between
the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been By security a person binds himself to pay or perform for a third
the parties. It held that the cancellation or termination of the
exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which person in case the latter should fail to do so.
RULING: agreement prior to its expiration period is justified as it was brought
pertain to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has about by Sy's own default in his compliance with the terms of the
The donation was an onerous one, where failure of the school to no other rights than those bestowed upon him. Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:
construct a medical college would give the heirs the power to revoke agreement and not motivated by fraud or greed.
the donation, reverting the property back to the heirs of the donor. It A creditor may sue any of the joint and several (solidarios) debtors or
is therefore a resolutory condition. Although, the period was not all of them simultaneously. The claims instituted against one shall not Inchausti vs. Yulo (novation)
stated, and the courts should have fixed a period, in this case, 50 be an obstacle for those that may be later presented against the
years has lapsed since the donation was executed, thus fixing a others, as long as it does not appear that the debt has been collected Held:
period would serve no purpose and the property must already be Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states in full. The contract of May 12, 1911 does not constitute a novation of the
reverted back. that the three signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any former one of Aug.12, 1909, with respect to the other debtors who
one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire Rogero (P) was solidary liable for the full amount of the obligation executed this contract. First, “in order that an obligation may be
obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor (PBC) to without any right to demand the exhaustion of the property of the extinguished by another which substitutes it, it is necessary that it
determine against whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, principal debtor. Her position so far as the creditor was concerned should be so expressly declared or that the old and the new be
the dismissal of the case against Pontanosas may not be deemed as was exactly the same as if she had been the principal debtor. incompatible in all points(art. 1292). It is always necessary to state
having discharged Inciong from liability as well. As regards Naybe, that it is the intentionof the contracting parties to extinguish the
suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. former obligation by the new one.” The obligation to pay a sum of
257 SCRA 578 – Mercantile Law – Negotiable Instruments in Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v CA
money is not novated in a new instrument wherein the old is ratified,
General – Signature of Makers – Guaranty Inciong, therefore, may only have recourse against his co-makers, as G.R. No. 85161
by changing only the term of payment and adding other obligations
provided by law. September 11, 1991
not incompatible with the old one.
The obligation being solidary, the remission of any part of the debt
Respondent and petitioner entered into a lease agreement for the
made by a creditor in favor of one or more of the solidary debtors
Jaucian vs. Querol term six (6) years over the Avenue, Broadway and Capitol Theaters
In February 1983, Rene Naybe took out a loan from Philippine Bank necessarily benefits the others, and therefore there can be no doubt
Creditor (D) vs. Estate of "solidary" debtor (P) and the land on which they are situated. After more than two (2)
of Communications (PBC) in the amount of P50k. For that he that, in accordance with the provision of Art. 1215, 1222, the
years of operation, the respondent lessor made demands for the
executed a promissory note in the same amount. Naybe was able to GR L-11307, October 5, 1918 defendant has the right to enjoy the benefits of the partial remission.
repossession of the said leased properties in view of the Sy's arrears
convince Baldomero Inciong, Jr. and Gregorio Pantanosas to co-sign At present judgment can be rendered only as to P112,500.
in monthly rentals and non-payment of amusement taxes.
with him as co-makers. The promissory note went due and it was left Facts: Lino Dayandante and Hermenegilda Rogero (P)
acknowledged themselves to be indebted to Roman Jaucian (D) Facts: This suit is brought for the recovery of a certain sum of money,
unpaid. PBC demanded payment from the three but still no payment In pursuance of their latter agreement, Sy's arrears in rental were
"jointly and severally". the balance of a current account opened by the firm of Inchausti &
was made. PBC then sue the three but PBC later released reduced. However, the accrued amusement tax liability of the three
Company with Teodor Yulo and after his death continued by Gregorio
Pantanosas from its obligations. Naybe left for Saudi Arabia hence (3) theaters to the City Government of Cabanatuan City had
Rogero (P) signed the document in the capacity of surety for Yulo as principal representative of his children. On Aug.12, 1909,
can’t be issued summons and the complaint against him was accumulated despite the fact that Sy had been deducting the amount
Dayandante, but the instrument showed that both debtors bound Gregorio Yulo, in representation of his 3 siblings, executed a notarial
subsequently dropped. Inciong was left to face the suit. He argued of P4,000.00 from his monthly rental. Sy filed the present action for
themselves jointly and severally to the creditor. There was nothing in instrument, ratifying all the contents of the prior document of Jan.26,
that that since the complaint against Naybe was dropped, and that reformation of the lease agreement, damages and injunction and
the terms of the obligation itself to show that the relation between the 1908, severally and joint acknowledged their indebtedness for
prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin OVEC
Pantanosas was released from his obligations, he too should have two debtors was that of principal and surety. P253,445.42, 10 % per annum, 5 installments. Plaintiff brought an
from entering and taking possession of the three theaters.
been released. action againsta Gregorio for the payment of the said balance due. But
Rogero (P) sued Jaucian (D) for fraud. But in his answer, Jaucian (D) on May 12, 1911, 3 siblings executed another instrument in
OVEC on the other hand, alleged in its answer by way of
asked for judgment against the Rogero (P) for the amount due upon recognition of the debt, reduced to P225,000, interest reduced to 6%
counterclaims that by reason of Sy's violation of the terms of the
the obligation. The court ruled in favor of Jaucian (D). per annum, installments increased to 8.
subject lease agreement and became authorized to enter and

assumed the payment of P253. WON INCHAUSTI lost its right for agreeing with other obligors in the If not. YES. YES. obligors. extension for time of payment. WON it has any effect in the action brought and in this Issue: WON INCHAUSTI can sue Gregorio alone. entered into the 6 debtors who affidavit. .445.42. NO. proroguing (discontinuing) the obligation and the WON THE CONTRACT with the 3 obligors constitute a novation present suit. here being other reduction of debt. NO. in accordance with May 12 1911 (substitution) of Aug 12 1909 affidavit.