G.R. No.

L-11307 October 5, 1918

ROMAN JAUCIAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO QUEROL, administrator of
the intestate estate of the deceased Hermenegildo Rogero, defendant-appellee.

Facts:

1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claim

In October 1908, Lino Dayadante and Hermegilda Rogero executed private writing
in which they acknowledged themselves to be indebted to Roman Jaucian in the sum of
Php 13,332.33 bearing interest of 10 percent per annum wherein the terms of this
obligation are fully set out at page 38 of the bill of exceptions, “We jointly and severally
acknowledge our indebtedness”. Rogero signed the document as a surety for Dayadante,
but on the instrument, both debtors bound themselves jointly and severally to the creditor,
and nothing in the terms of obligation shows that the relationship between the two debtors
was that of principal and surety. With that, Jaucian brought an action and asked for
judgment against Rogero for the amount due on the obligation, and this court ruled in his
favor also, Jaucian filed a case against the estate of Rogero, averring that Dayadante
was insolvent, so he renewed his prayer in his original petition contends that Moir’s April
13, 1914, Order had admitted the claim.

2. Defendant’s/Respondent’s claim

On November 1909, Rogero brought a suit in CFI against Jaucian, asking that the
document in question be canceled to her on the ground that her signature was obtain by
means of fraud. While the case was pending in the SC, Rogero died and the administrator
of her estate, Franciso Querol was substituted in the case.

3. Decisions of the lower courts

The defendant appealed the Court of First Instance's decision to the Supreme
Court after the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Jaucian did not argue
that the lower court's denial of his cross-demand was incorrect in his appeal to the court,
therefore the ruling on the appeal was restricted to the matters pertaining to the
document's validity. The Supreme Court issued its verdict on November 25, 1913,
overturning the lower court's decision and ruling that the contested claim was legitimate.

4. Issue/s

● Whether or not, Rogero was solidarily bound in the obligation.

Held:

5. Disposition of the case

The decision of the trial court denying Jaucian’s petition was correct and must be
affirmed. No cost will be allowed on this appeal. So ordered

6. Dictum

1. Yes. Rogero, through a surety for Dayadante, was nevertheless bound jointly
and severally within the obligation. Article 1822 of the Civil Code provides that
by security a person binds himself to pay or perform for a third person in case
the latter should fail to do so. Also, article 1144 of the Civil Code provides that
accreditors may sue any of the joint and several debtors or all of them
simultaneously. The claim instituted against one shall not be an obstacle for
those that may be later presented against the others, as long as it does not
appear that the debt has been collected in full. Rogero was solidary liable for
the full amount without any right to demand the exhaustion of the property of
the principal debtor. Her position so far as the creditor was concerned was the
same as if she had been the principal debtor.