You are on page 1of 8

924

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sadayavs.Sevilla

No.L17845.April27,1967.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF VlCTOR SEVILLA. SlMEON SADAYA,
petitioner,vs.FRANCISCOSEVILLA,respondent.
Obligations;Solidaryliabilityofaccommodationmakers.Wheretheprincipal
debtorfailedtopaythebankthebalancedueonapromissorynote,eitheroneofthe
solidaryaccommodationmakersmaybeheldliableforthesaidbalance.
Same;Obligationofprincipaldebtortoreimburseaccommodationmakerwho
paidthedebt.Theprincipaldebtor,whoreceivedfromthebankthefullvalueof
thenote.isobligatedtomakefullreimbursementtoanaccommodationmakerwho
paidthebankthebalancedueonsaidnote.
Same; Negotiable Instruments Law; Right to seek contribution from co
accommodationmaker.Whereasolidaryaccommodationmakerpaidtothebank
the balance due on a promissory note, he may seek contribution from the other
solidary accommodation maker, in the absence of a contrary agreement between
them. This right springs from an implied promise between the accommodation
makerstoshareequallytheburdensresultingfromtheirexecutionofthenote.They
arejointguarantorsoftheprincipaldebtors.
Same; New Civil Code supplements Negotiable Instruments LawSince the
NegotiableInstrumentsLawdoesnotdefinetherightofanaccommodationmaker,to
seekreimbursementfromanotheraccommodationmaker,thisdeficiencyshouldbe
suppliedbyarticle2073oftheNewCivilCode,whichdealswithasituationwhere
onesuretyhaspaidthedebtandisseekingcontributionfromhiscosureties.
Same;Rulesonreimbursementunderarticle2073.Asolidaryaccommodation
maker(1)maydemandfromtheprincipaldebtorreimbursementoftheamountwhich
hepaidonthepromissorynoteand(2)hemaydemandcontributionfromhisco
accommodationmaker.withoutfirstdirectinghisaction
925

VOL.19,APRIL27,1967
925
Sadayavs.Sevilla

againsttheprincipaldebtor,providedthat(a)hemadethepaymentbyvirtueof
ajudicialdemand,or(b)theprincipaldebtorisinsolvent.

Same;Whenpayingsolidaryaccommodationmakerisnotentitledtodemand
contribution.Asolidary accommodation maker,who paidthe balance due ona
promissorynote,isnotentitledtodemandcontributionfromhiscoaccommodation
makerwherehemadethepaymentvoluntarilyandwithoutanyjudicialdemandand
thereisnoproofthattheprincipaldebtorisinsolvent.

PETITIONforreviewbycertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
BelenLawOfficesforpetitioner.
Poblador,Cruz&Nazarenoforrespondent.
SANCHEZ,J.:
OnMarch 28, 1949,Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varonaand Simeon Sadaya
executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the Bank of the Philippine
Islands,oritsorder,apromissorynoteforP15,000.00withinterestat8%
per annum, payable on demand. The entire amount of P15,000.00,
proceedsofthepromissorynote,wasreceivedfromthebankbyOscar
Varonaalone.VictorSevillaandSimeonSadayasignedthepromissory
noteascomakersonlyasafavortoOscarVarona.Paymentsweremade
on account. As of June 15, 1950, the outstanding balance stood at
P4,859.00.Nopaymentwasthereaftermade.
On October 6, 1952; the bank collected from Sadaya the foregoing
balancewhich,togetherwithinterest,totalledP5,746.12.Varonafailedto
reimburseSadayadespiterepeateddemands.
Victor Sevilla died. Intestate estate proceedings were started in the
CourtofFirstInstanceofRizal,SpecialProceedingNo.1518.Francisco
Sevillawasnamedadministrator.
InSpecialProceedingNo.1518,Sadayafiledacreditorsclaimforthe
abovesumofP5,746.12,plusattorneysfeesinthesumofP1,500.00.The
administrator resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased
VictorSevilladidnotreceiveanyamountasconsiderationforthepro
926

926
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sadayavs.Sevilla

missorynote,butsigneditonlyassuretyforOscarVarona.OnJune5,
1957,thetrialcourtissuedanorderadmit

ting the claim of Simeon Sadaya in the amount of P5,746.12, and


directing the administrator to pay the same from any available funds
belongingtotheestateofthedeceasedVictorSevilla.
The motion to reconsider having been overruled, the administrator
appealed.1 TheCourtofAppeals,inadecisionpromulgatedonJuly15,
1960,votedtosetasidetheorderappealedfromandtodisapproveand
disallowappelleesclaimofP5,746.12againsttheintestateestate.
ThecaseisnowbeforethisCourtoncertioraritoreviewthejudgment
oftheCourtofAppeals.
Sadayasbriefhereseeksreversaloftheappellatecourtsdecisionand
praysthathisclaimintheamountof50%ofP5,746.12,orP2,878.06,
againsttheintestateestateofthedeceasedVictorSevilla,beapproved.
1. That Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya were joint and several
accommodationmakersofthe15,000.00pesopromissorynoteinfavorof
the Bank of the Philippine Islands, need not be essayed. As such
accommodationmakers,theindividualobligationofeachofthemtothe
bankisnodifferentfrom,andnogreaterandnolessthan,thatcontracted
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
lendingtheirnamesto,OscarVarona,Theirliabilitytothebankuponthe
explicittermsofthepromissorynoteisjointandseveral. 2Betteryet,the
bankcouldhavepursueditsrighttocollecttheunpaidbalanceagainst
eitherSevillaorSadaya.Andthefactisthatoneofthelasttwo,Simeon
Sadaya,paidthatbalance.
________________
1

CAG.R. No. 22246R, Intestate Estate of the deceased Victor Sevilla, Francisco

Sevilla,administratorappellant,vs.SimeonSadaya,claimantappellee.
2Section29,NegotiableInstrumentsLaw;Acunavs.VelosoandXavier,50Phil.241,

252;PhilippineTrustCompanyvs.AntiguaBoticaRamirez,etal.,56Phil.662,565566,
571.Seealso;Article1216,CivilCode.
VOL.19,APRIL27,1967

927
927

Sadayavs.Sevilla

2. It is beyond debate that Simeon Sadaya could have sought


reimbursementofthetotalamountpaidfromOscarVarona.Thisisbut

rightandjust.Varonareceivedfullvalueofthepromissorynote. 3Sadaya
receivednothingtherefrom.Hepaidthebankbecausehewasajointand
severalobligor.Theleastthatcanbesaidisthat,asbetweenVaronaand
Sadaya,thereisanimpliedcontractofindemnity.AndVaronaisboundby
theobligationtoreimburseSadaya.4
3.Thecommoncreditor,theBankofthePhilippineIslands,nowoutof
the way, we first look into the relations inter se amongst the three
consignersofthepromissorynote,Theirrelations visavis theBank,we
repeat,isthatofjointandseveralobligors.Butcanthesamethingbesaid
abouttherelationsofthethreeconsigners,inrespecttoeachother?
Surely enough, as amongst the three, the obligation of Varona and
SevillatoSadayawhopaidcannotbejointandseveral.For,indeed,had
paymentbeenmadebyOscarVarona,insteadofSimeonSadaya,Varona
couldnothavehadreasontoseekreimbursementfromeitherSevillaor
Sadaya,orboth.Afterall,theproceedsoftheloanwenttoVaronaandthe
othertworeceivednothingtherefrom.
4.Onprinciple,asolidaryaccommodationmakerwhomadepayment
hastherighttocontribution,fromhiscoaccommodationmaker,inthe
absence of agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to
conditionsimposedbylaw.Thisrightspringsfromanimpliedpromise
betweentheaccommodationmakerstoshareequallytheburdensthatmay
ensue from their having consented to stamp their signatures on the
promissorynote.5 Forhavinglenttheirsignaturestotheprincipaldebtor,
theyclearlyplacedthemselvesinsofaraspaymentmadebyone
________________
3 PhilippineNationalBankvs.Masa,etal.,48Phil.207,211;Acuavs,Velosoand

Xavier,supra;DanielonNegotiableInstruments,1933ed.,Vol.3,p.1598.
4 Tolentino,CommentariesandJurisprudenceonCommercialLawsofthePhilippines,

Vol.I,p.255,citingBlanchardvs.Blanchard,201N.Y.134,94NE630.
5DanielonNegotiableInstruments,id.,p.1597.

928

928
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sadayavs.Sevilla

maycreateliabilityontheotherinthecategoryofmerejointguarantors
oftheformer.6 Thisisasitshouldbe.Notoneofthembenefitedbythe

promissorynote.Theystandonthesameffooting.Inmisfortune,their
burdensshouldbeequallyspread.
Manresa, commenting on Article 1844 of the Civil Code of Spain, 7
whichissubstantiallyreproducedinArticle20738 ofourCivilCode,on
thispointstated:
Otros, como Pothier, entienden que, si bien el principio es evidente en estricto
conceptojuridico,sehanextremadosusconsecuenciashastaelpuntodequeestas
soncontrarias,nosoloalalogica,sinotambienalaequidad,quedebeserelalmadel
Derecho,comohadichoLaurent.
Esaaccinsostienennonacedelafianza,pues,enefecto,elhechodeafianzar
unamismadeudanocreaningunvinculojuridico,niningunarazondeobligarentre
losfiadores,sinoquetrae,porelcontrario,suorigendeunaactoposterior,cualesel
pagodetodalatdeudarealizadoporunodeellos,ylaequidadnopermitequelos
demasfiadores,queigualmenteestabanobligadosadichopago,seaprovechende
eseactoenperjuiciodelquelorealizo.
Lociertoesqueesaaccionconcedidaalfiadornace,si,delhechodelpago,pero
esconsecuenciadelbeneficioodelderechodedivision,comotenemosyadicho.En
efecto,porvirtuddeestadivision,todosloscofiadoresvienenobligadosacontribuir
alpagodelapartequeacadaunocorresponde.Deeseobligacion,contraidapor
todosellos,selibranlosquenohanpagadoporconsecuenciadelactorealizadopor
elquepago,ysibienestenohizomasque cumplireldeberqueelcontractode
fianzaleimponiaderesponderdetodoeldebitocuandonolimitosu
________________
6DanielonNegotiableInstruments,id.,p.1595;andFootnote65xxx:Theliabilityof

cosuretiestoeachotherforcontributionisnotjoint[jointandseveral]butseveral,citing
Vansantvs.Gardner,240Ky.318,42S.W.(2nd)300;Vossvs.Lewis,126Ind.155,25
N.E.892.
7ARTICULO1.844Cuandosondosomaslosfiadoresdeunmismodeudoryporuna

mismadeuda,elquedeelloslahayapagadopodrareclamardecadaunodelosotrosla
partequeproporcionalmentelecorrespondasatisfacer.
Sialgundodeellosresultarainsolvente,lepartedeesterecaerasobretodosenlamisma
proporcion.
Paraquepuedatenerlugarladisposiciondeestearticulo,esprecisoquesehayahechoel
pagoenvirtuddedemandajudicialohallandoseeldeudorprincipalenestadodeconcursoo
quiebra.

8Article2073willhereafterberecitedinfull.

VOL.19,APRIL27,1967

929
929

Sadayavs.Sevilla

obligacionapartealgunadelmismo, dichoactoredundaenbeneficiodelosotros
cofiadores los cuales se aprovechan de el para quedar desligados de todo
compromisoconelacreedor"9

5.Andnow,totherequisitesbeforeoneaccommodationmakercanseek
reimbursementfromacoaccommodationmaker.
ByArticle18oftheCivilCodeinmattersnotcoveredbythespecial
laws,theirdeficiencyshallbesuppliedbytheprovisionsofthisCode.
NothingextantintheNegotiableInstrumentsLawwoulddefinetheright
of one accommodation maker to seek reimbursement from another.
Perforce,wemustgototheCivilCode.
Because Sevilla and Sadaya, in themselves, are but coguarantors of
Varona,theircasecomeswithintheambitofArticle2073oftheCivil
Codewhichreads:
ART.2073.Whentherearetwoormoreguarantorsofthesamedebtorandforthe
samedebt,theoneamongthemwhohaspaidmaydemandofeachoftheothersthe
sharewhichisproportionallyowingfromhim,
Ifanyoftheguarantorsshouldbeinsolvent,hisshareshallbebornebytheothers,
includingthepayer,inthesameproportion.
Theprovisionsofthisarticleshallnotbeapplicable,unlessthepaymenthasbeen
madeinvirtueofajudicialdemandorunlesstheprincipaldebtorisinsolvent"10

AsMr.JusticeStreetputsit:"[T]hatarticledealswiththesituationwhich
ariseswhenonesuretyhaspaidthedebttothecreditorandisseeking
contributionfromhiscosureties."11
Notthattherequirementsinparagraph3,Article2073,justquoted,are
devoidofcogentreason.SaysManresa:12
_________________
9Manresa,ComentariosalCodigoCivilEspaol[1951ed]TomoXII,paginas337,38,

339;italicssupplied.
10Thewordquiebra[bankrupt]intheSpanishtextofArticle1844oftheCivilCodeof

SpainiseliminatedinArticle2073ofthepresentCivilCode;italicssupplied.

11Cachovs.Valles,45Phil.107,110111,referringtoArticle1844oftheSpanishCivil

Code,nowArticle2073oftheCivilCode.
12Manresa,CodigoCivilEspaol,TomoXII,paginas342343.

930

930
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sadayavs.Sevilla

c)Requisitosparaelejerciciodelderechodereintegroodereembolsoderivadode
la corresponsabilidad de los cofiadores.La tercera de las prescripciones que
comprendeelarticuloserefierealosrequisitosquedebenconcurrirparaquepueda
tener lugar lo dispuesto en el mismo. Ese derecho que concede al fiador para
reintegrarsedirectamentedelosfiadoresdeloquepagoporellosenvezdedirigirsu
reclamacioncontraeldeudor,esunbeneficiootorgadoporlaleysoloendoscasos
determinados,cuyajustificacionresultaevidenciadadesdeluego;yesalimitacion
estedebidamenteaconsejadaporunarazondeprudenciaquenopuededesconocerse,
cualesladeevitarqueporlameravoluntaddeunodeloscofiadorespuedahacerse
surgirlaacciondereintegrocontralosdemasenprejuiciodelosmismos.
Elperjuicioquecontalmotivopuedeinferirsealoscofiadoresesbiennotorio,
puesteniendoenprimerterminoelfiador quepagaporel deudor elderechode
indemnizacioncontraeste,sancionadoporelart.1,838,esdetodopuntoindudable
queejercitandoestaaccionpuedenquedarlibresdetodaresponsabilidadlosdemas
cofiadoressi,aconsecuenciadeella,indemnizaelfiadoaaquelenlosterminos
establecidosenelexpresadoarticulo.Porelcontrariodeprescindirdedichoderecho
elfiador,reclamandodelosconfiadoresenprimerlugareloportunoreintegro,estos
entendrianmasremedioquesatisfacersusductaresrespectivas,repitiendodespues
porellascontraeldeudorconlaimposiciondelasmolestiasygastosconsiguientes.
Noesaventuradoasegurarquesielfiadorquepagapudieralibrementeutilizar
unouotrodedichosderechos,eldeindemnizacionporeldeudoryeldelreintegro
porloscofiadores,indudablemente optariasiempre yentodocasoporelsegundo,
puestoquemuchamasgarantiasdesolvenciaymuchamasseguridaddelcobrohade
encontrarenlosfiadoresqueeneldeudor;yenlapracticaquedariareducidoel
primeroalaindemnizacionporeldeudoralosconfiadoresquehubieranhechoel
reintegro,obligandoaestos,sinexcepcionalguna,asoportarsiemprelosgastosylas
molestiasqueanteriormentehemosindicado.Yparaevitarestosperjuicios,laleyno
ha podido menos de reducir el ejercicio de ese derecho a los casos en que
absolutamenteseaindispensable.13

6. All of the foregoing postulate, the following rules: (1) A joint and
several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may
demandfromtheprincipaldebtorreimbursementfortheamountthathe
paidtothepayee;and(2)ajointandseveralaccommodationmakerwho
paysonthesaidpromissorynotemaydirectlydemand
________________
13Manresa,id.,pp.342348,

VOL.19,APRIL27,1967

931
931

Hilariovs.CityofManila

reimbursementfromhiscoaccommodationmakerwithoutfirstdirecting
his action against the principal debtor provided that (a) he made the
payment by virtue of a judicial demand, or (b) a principal debtor is
insolvent.
TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatSadayaspaymenttothebankwas
madevoluntarilyandwithoutanyjudicialdemand,andthatthereisan
absolute absence of evidence showing that Varona is insolvent. This
combinationoffactandlackoffactepitomizesthefataldistancebetween
paymentbySadayaandSadayasrighttodemandofSevillatheshare
whichisproportionatelyowingfromhim.
For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of Appeals under
reviewisherebyaffirmed.Nocosts.Soordered.
Concepcion,C.J.,Reyes,J.B.L.,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,
J.P.,ZaldivarandCastro,JJ.,concur.
Judgmentaffirmed.
_____________
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like