De Guzman, as administratrix of Lucero v.

Santos
Pertinent Provision:
Article 1838 - Any guarantor who pays for the debtor shall be indemnified by the latter even should the
guaranty have been undertaken without the knowledge of the debtor.
Facts:
Toole, Abad and Santos formed a general partnership (Philippine-American Construction
Company) with capital of P14,000, P10,000 of which was loaned from Paulino Candelaria. The
partnership and the partners obligated themselves to pay solidarily.
The partners failed to pay which made Candelaria file an action to recover the amount of the
loan with interest and attorneys fees.
Upon the filing of the complaint, Candelaria obtained a writ of attachment against the partners.
The sheriff attached properties of the 3 partners, no partnership property was attached.
In view of these attachments, the partnership represented by Abad, and Santiago Lucero and
Meliton as guarantors, executed a bond of P10,000 to release the attached properties.
In the bond executed, Santos neither intervened nor signed individually, but Abad testified that
it was Santos who induced him to get the signature of Lucero by taking advantage of his
relations with him.
The bond was approved and the attached properties were returned to their owners (the
partners).
A writ of execution was issued. However, the sheriff returned it with the statement that the writ
could not be executed as he found no property of the judgment debtors (partners/partnership).
In view of this, Candelaria moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against Lucero and
Meliton (guarantors) which the court granted.
De Guzman (admin of Lucero) refused to pay but was eventually compelled to pay P5,565.55.
Meliton also paid upon the bond signed by him the sum of P5,135.
Abad reimbursed them in the amount of P3,800 which de Guzman and Meliton divided equally.
De Guzman demanded from Santos the return of P3,665.55, the balance advanced by de
Guzman to Candelaria, upon the latters refusal, she brought an action to recover such amount.
Issue:
WON Santos is bound to pay de Guzman (admin of Lucero) what she had advanced to
Candelaria despite the fact that he neither applied for nor intervened in the execution of the
bond in any capacity.
Held:
Yes, Santos is bound to pay de Guzman.
It is beyond question that Santos neither intervened nor signed the bond but it was clear,
and this was admitted, that the bond was filed to release the partners attached properties.
Under article 1822 of the Civil Code, by guaranty one person binds himself to pay or perform
for a third person in case the latter should fail to do so; and article 1838 provides that any
guarantor who pays for the debtor shall be indemnified by the latter even should the
guaranty have been undertaken without the knowledge of the debtor.
The obligation to pay is also sanctioned by article 1158 of the Civil Code which provides that
...Any person who makes a payment for the account of another may recover from the
debtor the amount of the payment, unless it was made against the express will of the latter.
In the latter case he can only recover from the debtor in so far as the payment has been
beneficial to the latter.
Applying articles 1838 and 1156, it is obvious that Santos is legally bound to pay what the de
Guzman had advanced to Candelaria upon the judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the
bond had been given without his knowledge.
Furthermore, from the proven facts it cannot logically be deduced that Santos did not have
knowledge of the bond because:
1. His properties were attached and the attachment could not have been levied
without his knowledge
2. Because the said properties were returned to him and in receiving them he was
necessarily apprized of the fact that a bond had been filed to discharge the
attachment.