SECTION 4. JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS.

112. SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- FELIPE C. SIAPNO,
RESPONDENT. G.R. NO. 188944, FIRST DIVISION, JULY 9, 2014,

FACTS:

The case involves a loan obtained by Macaria Berot and the spouses Rodolfo A. Berot and Lilia P. Berot
from Felipe C. Siapno, secured by a mortgage on a portion of land. Macaria died, and due to default,
Siapno filed for foreclosure. The lower court allowed the foreclosure, ordering payment within 90 days,
and assessed damages. Appellant, Rodolfo, appealed, questioning the substitution of Macaria's estate,
appointment of Rodolfo as representative, validity of the mortgage, joint liability, and damages awarded.
The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified, deleting exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and expenses.
Appellant argues the impropriety of substituting the estate, joint liability, and improper damages. The
Court of Appeals found the substitution procedurally correct and waived objections. It affirmed the
foreclosure, avoiding a categorical finding on joint or solidary liability but upheld the deletion of
damages lacking basis. Appellant seeks review on certiorari, presenting legal questions.

ISSUE:

Whether the nature of the loan obligation contracted by petitioners is joint or solidary.

RULING:

Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the general rule is that when there is a
concurrence of two or more debtors under a single obligation, the obligation is presumed to be joint.
This article specifies that the concurrence of multiple creditors or debtors does not automatically imply
that each debtor must entirely fulfill the obligation. Solidary liability arises only when the obligation
explicitly states so or when the law or the nature of the obligation necessitates solidarity.

In the case at hand, the trial court asserted that the nature of the petitioners' obligation to the
respondent was solidary. However, this pronouncement was not expressly stated in its decision. While
the Court of Appeals did not make a clear declaration on the nature of the obligation, a closer
examination of the records revealed that the trial court expressly pronounced the obligation as solidary.

The absence of explicit terms characterizing the obligation as solidary in the mortgage documents led to
the conclusion that the nature of the obligation was joint, not solidary. The presumption under the law
for joint obligations prevailed, requiring the party alleging solidarity to prove it with a preponderance of
evidence.

The Court of Appeals upheld the respondent's course of action, considering it as an availment of the
second remedy under Section 7, Rule 86 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. In this regard, the
mortgagee had the legal option to institute a foreclosure suit and recover upon the security, which was
the mortgaged property.

As a result, the Court affirmed the decision with the modification that the obligation of the petitioners
and the estate of Macaria Berot is declared as joint in nature.
SUMMARY:

The case involves a loan obtained by Macaria Berot and the spouses Rodolfo A. Berot and Lilia P. Berot
from Felipe C. Siapno, secured by a mortgage on a portion of land. Macaria's death led to Siapno filing
for foreclosure due to default. The lower court permitted the foreclosure, setting a 90-day payment
period and assessing damages. Rodolfo, the appellant, raised concerns about the substitution of
Macaria's estate, his appointment as representative, the validity of the mortgage, joint liability, and
awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, removing exemplary damages,
attorney's fees, and expenses. The central issue was whether the loan obligation was joint or solidary.

The ruling emphasized Article 1207 of the Civil Code, stating that in the absence of explicit terms
indicating solidarity, a concurrence of debtors in a single obligation is presumed to be joint. Although the
trial court suggested solidary liability without clear expression, the Court of Appeals, upon closer
scrutiny, found the obligation to be joint. The absence of explicit terms in the mortgage documents
supporting solidary liability led to this conclusion. The Court upheld the foreclosure, considering it a valid
course of action under the law. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision with the modification that
the obligation of the petitioners and Macaria Berot's estate is declared as joint in nature.