Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > January 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2178 January 6, 1906 - SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA v. TEODORO BENEDICTO

005 Phil 512:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2178. January 6, 1906. ]

SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE ESTATE OF TEODORO BENEDICTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Del-Pan, Ortigas & Fisher, for Appellant.

Jovito Yusay, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CREDITORS; ACTIONS AGAINST DEBTOR SURETIES. — The mere fact that the creditor does not commence an action against the principal debtor at the maturity of the obligation does not release the surety from liability. (Following Banco Español Filipino v. Donalson Sim & Co. Et. Al., December 14, 1905.)

2. ADMISSIONS BY COUNSEL; ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE. — An admission of fact made in an answer filed by counsel for the plaintiff in another case is not evidence against the plaintiff in this case, when that answer was not signed by the plaintiff and no proof was presented to show that he had authorized the making of such an admission.

3. SURETIES; LIABILITY. — The contract in question contained, in reference to the surety, the following clause: "Quien consiente conmigo solidariamente en case de insolvencia en ser estrechado por el rigor de la ley," etc. Held, That insolvency occurred when the principal debtor failed to discharge the obligation at its maturity, and that upon such failure the surety became as principal debtor.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


This action was brought on the following document:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Yo, ________, principal de pueblo de ________, he recibido en esta fecha de Don ________ de la Rama del comercio de esta cabecera in cantidad de dos mil y quinientos pesos fuertes a mi entera satisfaccion cuya cantidad prometo solemnemente pagarle en el termino de seis meses a parte de esta fecha asi como tambien los intereses de la misma al respecto de veinticinco pesos por ciento anual y caso de ser omiso en el cumplimiento puntual de esta condicion me obligo a la solvencia de todos los danos y perjuicios que por tal motivo se le ocasionen al Sr. De la Rama sea cual fuese la naturaleza de los mismos hasta que se vea solventada totalmente la presente deuda con sus creditos al tanto por ciento indicado con la garantia de todos mis bienes habidos y por haber; ademas presento por mi fiador mancomunario a Don Teodoro Benedicto, vecino y principal de Jaro, quien consiente conmigo solidariamente en caso de insolvencia, en ser estrechado por el rigor de la Ley via de apremio su breve y ejecutiva _________ yo, todas las he _________ favorecemos y para _________ o a este credito mi __________ garantiza la presente _________ habidos y por haber finalmente ____________ a voluntad que este documento se considere como si fuera hecho ante escribano publico, esto es con las fuerzas y validez necesarias y que para el derecho del mencionado Don Isidro de la Rama mejor condusza. Y para que asi conste firmo el presente documento con mi fiador mancomunario en Iloilo, 6 de Septiembre de 1882. — Crisostomo Ramos. — Teodoro Benedicto."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the 1st of July, 1884, Isidro de la Rama instituted preparatory proceedings of an executive action for the recovery of this debt. The surety, Benedicto, was summoned and on July 8, 1884, admitted the genuineness of his signature to the document. In the execution actions which followed, judgment was rendered in favor of De la Rama and execution was issued and levied upon certain property of Ramos, the principal debtor. Thereupon, and in 1884, Julian Hernaez intervened in the action, claiming to be the owner of the property levied upon under the execution. This claim of intervention was decided in favor of Hernaez in 1900. Benedicto, the surety, was then dead, as was also Isidro de la Rama, the creditor. The heirs of the latter presented a claim for the debt evidenced by this document, in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Benedicto. This claim was disallowed by the committee, and the creditor appealed to the Court of First Instance. A trial was there had, which resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff and creditor for the sum of 14,926.05, Mexican pesos, and costs. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was not justified by the evidence, which motion was denied, and he has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

It is claimed by the appellant that De la Rama extended the time of the payment of this obligation, and thereby discharged the surety from liability thereon. The debt matured on the 6th day of March, 1883, and no proceedings in court were commenced thereon until the 1st of July, 1884. In the case of the Banco Español Filipino v. Donaldson Sim & Co. Et. Al., 1 No. 2422, decided the 14th day of December, 1905, this court has had occasion to consider this question. In that case the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El diferir el ejercicio de la accion no implica alteracion en la eficacia del contrato, ni modo alguno de responsabilidad por parte del acreeder. Es puramente, sin demostracion o prueba en contrario, espera, cortesia, lenidad, pasividad, inaccion. No constituye novacion, porque esta tiene que ser expresa. Ni engendra responsabilidad, porque esta de parte del acreedor, no puede nacer sino de mora, y para esta clase de mora seria necesaria interpelacion de parte de aquel que se considere perjudicado con ella. Para que aquella espera o inaccion, de suyo beneficiosa para los obligados, pueda traducirse como perjudicial para alguno de estos, es de todo punto necesario que asi se haga entender por medio de protesta o interpelacion contra la demora; sin un acto de esta naturaleza sigue siendo lo que es: puramente no hacer por parte del acreedor, lo cual por si solo no es inductivo de responsabilidad."cralaw virtua1aw library

There was no proof in this case to take it out of the rule laid down in the case cited. While there was evidence in the case that interest had been paid by Ramos prior to July, 1884, yet there was no evidence to show that this interest was paid in advance. Therefore, in accordance with the decision in said case of the Banco Español Filipino v. Donaldson Sim & Co., such payment of interest did not constitute an extension of the time for the payment of the obligation.

The defendant presented also, as proof of the granting of such an extension, an answer filed in the executive action in 1885, by the lawyer who represented De la Rama in that suit. This answer stated that an extension had been granted. It was not, however, signed by De la Rama, and there was no evidence to show that he authorized the making of that particular statement. It is therefore not evidence in this case against his heirs.

The defendant also presented a letter written by Ramos in April, 1884, asking for an extension. So answer by De la Rama to this letter was presented. It was a mere request of Ramos. No showing being made that it was ever granted, it was not sufficient to prove an extension.

The appellant claims that it was the duty of the creditor to exhaust the property of Ramos before an action could be maintained against the surety; that the evidence in the case shows that was not done, and that consequently this action can not be maintained. We do not find it necessary to decide whether Ramos had or had not property out of which the debt could have been paid, for we think that the terms of the contract between the parties did not impose upon the creditor the duty of exhausting the property of Ramos before proceeding against the surety. The word "mancomunario," used in the contract, has a general as well as a special meaning. That in this case it was used in its general signification is, we think, made plain by other terms of the agreement. It indicated nothing more than that Benedicto was presented as a person who would become obligated with Ramos, but it was not intended to indicate the precise character of the obligation which he incurred. This was, however, indicated in that other phrase of the contract which reads "quien consiente commigo solidariamente en case de insolvencia, en ser estrechado por el rigor de la ley," etc. The insertion of this clause in the contract made Benedicto liable as a principal, in case of the insolvency of Ramos. This insolvency occurred, in our opinion, either at the maturity of the obligation, on the 6th day of March, 1884, or at the latest on July 1, 1884, when Ramos, not having paid the debt, judicial proceedings were commenced against him for its collection. The contention of the appellant in that the phrase "in case of insolvency" means that insolvency does not exist until after judgment has been obtained against Ramos, execution issued thereon and returned unsatisfied, because no goods of Ramos could be found upon which to levy. To give the phrase this meaning would be to render useless and of no effect the word "solidariamente," for if this contention can be sustained, the liability of Benedicto, the surety by virtue of this contract, would be exactly the same as it would have been if this word had been omitted — that is, he would not be found to pay until all the property of Ramos had been exhausted and a judicial determination of this fact had been obtained. We think the clear meaning of the contract is that in case Ramos did not pay the debt at its maturity he should then be considered as insolvent, and the liability of Benedicto as a principal of the obligation would at once arise.

It is suggested by the appellant in his brief that as this question of solidarity was not touched upon by the judge in his decision, it can not be considered upon the appeal. There is nothing in this point. The question is presented by the pleadings and the evidence, and the fact that the court below based its decision in favor of the plaintiffs upon other grounds is no reason for saying that additional grounds can not be urged in this court to sustain it.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.

Endnotes:



1. Page 418, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2070 January 2, 1906 - W.H. TIPTON v. RAMON A. MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2227 January 2, 1906 - MAXIMINO ESPIRITU v. JOSE LUIS

    005 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 3021 January 2, 1906 - LEONISA YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 2030 January 4, 1906 - ALFRED DAVID OEHLERS v. ROBERT HARTWIG

    005 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 2050 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROHILLA MARU

    005 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2236 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NETA SHIYOKISHI

    005 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 2397 January 4, 1906 - LO SUI v. HARDEE WYATT

    005 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2555 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES SALAZAR

    005 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2567 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GERMAN DE TORRES, ET AL.

    005 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 1449 January 5, 1906 - VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL. v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 2021 January 5, 1906 - ANICETO LORENZO v. JOSE NAVARRO

    005 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 2151 January 6, 1906 - SALVADOR BROCAL v. JUAN VICTOR MOLINA

    005 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 2178 January 6, 1906 - SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA v. TEODORO BENEDICTO

    005 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 1973 January 8, 1906 - TAN DIANGSENG TAN SUI PIC v. LUCIO ECHAUZ TAN SUICO

    005 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 2542 January 8, 1906 - MARGARITA TORIBIO, ET AL. v. MODESTA TORIBIO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 2587 January 8, 1906 - CARMELO FLOR BAGO v. DOMINGA GARCIA

    005 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 1993 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 1994 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 2038 January 13, 1906 - A.M. ESSABHOY v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    005 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 2235 January 15, 1906 - THOMAS PEPPERELL v. B.F. TAYLOR

    005 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 2244 January 18, 1906 - LEONCIO PANAGUITON v. JAMES J. WATKINS

    005 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906 - GERMAN JABONETA v. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2253 January 19, 1906 - MARIANO GARCIA MARTINEZ v. CORDOBA & CONDE

    005 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2260 January 19, 1906 - PAULA ROCO v. ESTEFANIA R. VILLAR

    005 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 2345 January 19, 1906 - ROBERT M. LOPER v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY

    005 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 2586 January 19, 1906 - TOMAS GUISON v. MARIA CONCEPCION

    005 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2580 January 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO SEVILLA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 1810 January 22, 1906 - J.W. MARKER v. EULOGIO GARCIA

    005 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 2239 January 22, 1906 - WILLIAM GITT v. MOORE & HIXSON

    005 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 2300 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO MALLARI

    005 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 2606 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LOS SANTOS

    005 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 2426 January 24, 1906 - FERNANDO MONTANO LOPEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ ILUSTRE

    005 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 2597 January 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GLEFONEA

    005 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 2285 January 25, 1906 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. WILLIAMS, CHANDLER & CO.

    005 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 2295 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CRUZ

    005 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 2323 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NATIVIDAD PAREJA

    005 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 2387 January 31, 1906 - OLIVER & TRILL v. W.E. SHERMAN

    005 Phil 577