INTESTATE ESTATE OF VICTOR SEVILLA V.
FRANSICO SEVILLA may directly demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first
February 18, 1991 | GR No. 88866 | Cruz, J. | Non-Negotiable Instruments
DIGEST MADE BY:
Dave U.
CLUE: Treasury Warrants
PETITIONER: Intestate Estate of Victor Sevilla, Simeon Adaya
RESPONDENTS: Fransico Sevilla
DOCTRINE:
The following rules may be observed among accommodation makers: (1) A joint and
several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand from the
principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee; and (2) a joint
and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may directly
demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first directing his
action against the principal debtor provided that (a) he made the payment by virtue of a
judicial demand or (b) the principal debtor is insolvent.
RECIT- READY SUMMARY:
Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed jointly and severally, in favor
of BPI a promissory note for Php 15,000. The entire proceed of the promissory note
was received by Oscar Varona alone. Victor and Simeon were only accommodation
makers as a favor to Oscar Varona. Unfortunately, Oscar Varona failed to pay the
entirety of the Php 15,000. As a result, the bank collected from Sadaya the unpaid
amount plus interest amounting to Php 5,746.12. Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya
despite the latter’s demands. When Victor Sevilla died, Intestate proceedings were
started. Sadaya filed a creditor’s claim amounting to Php 5,746.12. The estate of Sevilla
denied the claim as Victor Sevilla mere signed only as a surety for Oscar Varona. The
trial court ruled that Sadaya’s claim should be admitted, and the estate should pay
Sadaya. However, this was reversed by the Court of Appeals hence the petition.
ISSUE: Should the estate of Victor Sevilla be liable to pay Simeon Adaya for the
payment of Oscar Varona’s default? – YES
Court held in the affirmative. While the Negotiable Instruments Law is silent on the
liability of an accommodation maker to his co-accommodation maker, Article 2073 of
the Civil Code may cover the deficiency of the NIL on the matter. The said provision
states that when there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same
debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the share
which is proportionally owing from him.
As such, the following rules may be observed among accommodation makers: (1) A
joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand
from the principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee; and
(2) a joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note
directing his action against the principal debtor provided that (a) he made the payment
by virtue of a judicial demand or (b) the principal debtor is insolvent.
FACTS:
1. Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed jointly and severally, in
favor of BPI a promissory note for Php 15,000. The entire proceed of the
promissory note was received by Oscar Varona alone. Victor and Simeon were only
accommodation makers as a favor to Oscar Varona.
2. Unfortunately, Oscar Varona failed to pay the entirety of the Php 15,000. As a
result, the bank collected from Sadaya the unpaid amount plus interest amounting
to Php 5,746.12. Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite the latter’s demands.
3. When Victor Sevilla died, Intestate proceedings were started. Sadaya filed a
creditor’s claim amounting to Php 5,746.12. The estate of Sevilla denied the claim
as Victor Sevilla mere signed only as a surety for Oscar Varona.
4. The trial court ruled that Sadaya’s claim should be admitted, and the estate should
pay Sadaya. However, this was reversed by the Court of Appeals hence the
petition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Should the estate of Victor Sevilla be liable to pay Simeon Adaya for the payment
of Oscar Varona’s default? – YES
RULING:
For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby
affirmed. No costs. So ordered..
RATIO:
1. YES
● Court held in the affirmative. Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya were joint and
several accommodation makers of the P15,000.00-peso promissory note in favor
of the Bank of the Philippine Islands. As such accommodation makers, the
individual obligation of each of them to the bank is no different from, and no
greater and no less than, that contracted by Oscar Varona. For, while these two
did not receive value on the promissory note, they executed the same with, and
for the purpose of lending their names to, Oscar Varona. Their liability to the bank
upon the explicit terms of the promissory note is joint and several.
● On principle, a solidary accommodation maker — who made payment — has the
right to contribution, from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence of
agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by
law. This right springs from an implied promise between the accommodation
makers to share equally the burdens that may ensue from their having consented
to stamp their signatures on the promissory note.
● While the Negotiable Instruments Law is silent on the liability of an
accommodation maker to his co-accommodation maker, Article 2073 of the Civil
 Code may cover the deficiency of the NIL on the matter. The said provision states
that when there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same
debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the
share which is proportionally owing from him.
● As such, the following rules may be observed among accommodation makers:
(1) A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note
may demand from the principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he
paid to the payee; and (2) a joint and several accommodation maker who pays on
the said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his co-
accommodation maker without first directing his action against the principal
debtor provided that (a) he made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand or
(b) the principal debtor is insolvent.