Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > January 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 46984 January 20, 1940 - FRANCISCA MERCADO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG, ET AL.

069 Phil 403:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46984. January 20, 1940.]

FRANCISCA MERCADO and ANASTACIO LISING, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG and ROMAN PINEDA, Defendants. FRANCISCO LORENZO and CONCEPCION HIZON, sureties-appellants.

Eduardo Gutierrez David for Appellants.

Lagman & Santos for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REDELIVERY BOND; LIABILITY OF SURETIES; NATURE OF JUDGMENT UPON STIPULATION. — An analysis of the terms of the redelivery bond shows unmistakably that the sureties bound themselves to answer solidarily for the obligations of the defendants to the plaintiffs in the amount of P912.04 "si fuera declarado por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a la posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad por sentencia firme recobren contra los demandados." In other words, the liability of the sureties was fixed and conditioned on the finality of the judgment rendered regardless of whether the decision was based on the consent of the parties or on the merits. A judgment entered on a stipulation is nonetheless a judgment of the court because consented to by the parties. In the absence of fraud and collusion we see no good reason why sureties on a replevin bond should not be bound by a judgment thus obtained. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Arzadon, 20 Phil., 452; Donovan v. Etna Indemn. Co., Cal. A. 723. 733: 103 P. . 365.)


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is an appeal interposed by sureties Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga holding them liable on their redelivery bond for the obligations of their co-defendants Francisco Macapayag and Roman Pineda.

It appears that on February 7, 1936, plaintiffs Francisca Mercado and Anastacio Lising filed an action against defendants Francisco Macapayag and Roman Pineda for the manual delivery of 370 cavanes of palay in the possession of the latter valued at P1,184 at P3.20 a cavan. Following the filing of the required bond by said plaintiffs a warrant of seizure was issued by the court and served and returned by the provincial sheriff of Pampanga. Defendants, however, claimed part of the palay seized by the sheriff amounting to 142 cavanes, 12 gantas and 4 chupas and to secure their return to the plaintiffs, filed a redelivery bond on February 11, 1936, more particularly entitled "Fianza para la devolucion de bienes secuestrados" and executed by the herein sureties-appellants, Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon, by the terms of which they bound themselves "mancomunada y solidariamente a favor de los demandantes en la cantidad de P912.04 que es doble del valor de dichos bienes segun la declaracion jurada de la demandante, Francisca Mercado, si fuera declarado por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a la posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad que por sentencia firme recobren contra los demandados." On September 3, 1936, the defendants presented an amended answer to the complaint, alleging as special defense that they were tenants of the plaintiffs Francisca Mercado for sometime prior and up to February 5, 1936, and that as such tenants they were in the legal possession of the palay in question, pending liquidation between them and the plaintiffs. When the case was called for hearing on November 26, 1937, the parties submitted to the court a stipulation of facts, in accordance with which the lower court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"De acuerdo con el convenio de las partes en corte abierta, el Juzgado condena al demandado Francisco Macapayag a pagar a la demandante 17 cavanes de palay ordinario, mas 20 centimos por cada cavan que es la diferencia entre el precio de dicha clase de palay y el ’dinalaga’, mas la suma de P44.33; y al demandado Roman Pineda a pagar a la misma demandante 18 cavanes de palay ordinario, mas 20 centimos por cada cavan que es, como se ha dicho, la diferencia entre el precio de dicha clase de palay y el ’dinalaga’, mas la suma de P37.55, pago que debera hacerse dentro del plazo de 30 dias a contar desde hoy."cralaw virtua1aw library

Judgment having become final, plaintiffs asked for execution, but sheriff’s return showed that there was no more palay or any other property in the possession of the defendants and judgment therefore remained unsatisfied. Hence, on January 26, 1938, plaintiffs petitioned for execution of judgment against the redelivery bond. To this petition, sureties Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon presented their opposition. But the lower court, on February 14, 1938, issued the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Apareciendo muy clara la obligacion contraida en la fianza de los fiadores en el sentido de que responden del yago del importe de la sentencia contra los demandados, se desestima la oposicion de ejecucion contra los mismos."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal to this court, sureties-appellants contend that they cannot be held liable on their redelivery bond because (1) the decision of the lower court which was based on the agreement of the parties modified the obligation and, there- fore, discharged the sureties from their undertaking; (2) the amount of palay mentioned in the decision does not refer to the palay seized; and (3) the sums of money appearing in said decision do not constitute the value of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

The only issue, therefore, raised in the case at bar revolves around the question of liability of the sureties on their redelivery bond as a consequence of the failure of the defendants to satisfy the decision rendered against them. An analysis of the terms of the redelivery bond shows unmistakably that the sureties bound themselves to answer solidarily for the obligations of the defendants to the plaintiffs in the amount of P912.04 "si fuera declarado por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a la posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad por sentencia firme recobren contra los demandados." In other words, the liability of the sureties was fixed and conditioned on the finality of the judgment rendered regardless of whether the decision was based on the consent of the parties or on the merits. A judgment entered on a stipulation is nonetheless a judgment of the court because consented to by the parties. In the absence of fraud and collusion we see no good reason why sureties on a replevin bond should not be bound by a judgment thus obtained. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Arzadon, 20 Phil., 452; Donovan v. Etna Indemn. Co., 10 Cal., A 723, 733, 103 P., 365.)

Had it not been for the redelivery bond of sureties the lower court would not have lifted the warrant of seizure as to the portion of the palay in the possession of the defendants and the palay could not have been disposed of by them. Having undertaken to substitute the obligation of the defendants to deliver the palay retained by the latter in case the court were to declare by final judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the same, the sureties should answer on their redelivery bond.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the sureties-appellants.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40257 January 11, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EMILIO LOPEZ DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 46813 January 11, 1940 - FEDERICO OLIVEROS v. PEDRO PORCIONGCOLA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 46836 January 11, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO G. YCO

    069 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 46997 January 11, 1940 - WISE & COMPANY v. MAN SUN LUNG

    069 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 43723 January 15, 1940 - ENRIQUE C. LOPEZ v. ERNESTO J. SEVA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 46384 January 15, 1940 - EL COLECTOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS v. JOSE VILLAFLOR

    069 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 46503 January 15, 1940 - FAUSTO DE LOS SANTOS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 46517 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VITALIANO CADERAO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 46603 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILlPINAS v. MOROS MACARAMPAT, ET AL.

    069 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 46607 January 16, 1940 - BONIFACIO CARLOS v. CATALINO DE LOS REYES

    069 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 46827 January 15, 1940 - FELISBERTO GONZALES v. CHARLES H. MILLER

    069 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 46829 January 15, 1940 - GO HAP, ET AL. v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 46896 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PABLO M. SAN JUAN

    069 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 46961 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIA LACENA

    069 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 46322 January 20, 1940 - ANSELMO RACELIS, ET AL. v. CRISPULO DEALO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 46343 January 20, 1940 - JOSE AVILA v. CORAZON CH. VELOSO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 46588 January 20, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SUBANO ALISUB

    069 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 46826 January 20, 1940 - LY SIAM v. JOSE DELGADO

    069 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 46835 January 20, 1940 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    069 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 46897 January 20, 1940 - GO KIM v. MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN

    069 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 46898 January 20, 1940 - PEDRO ADAPON v. FELISA MARALIT

    069 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 46922 January 20, 1940 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. GERVASIO DIAZ

    069 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 46945 January 20, 1940 - CALIXTO ORONCE v. ANSELMA LAPUZ

    069 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 46947 January 20, 1940 - JEREMIAS MENDOZA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    069 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46984 January 20, 1940 - FRANCISCA MERCADO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG, ET AL.

    069 Phil 403

  • Adm. Case No. 745 January 22, 1940 - IRINEA DE LOS SANTOS v. CELESTINO SAGALONGOS

    069 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 46141 January 22, 1940 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 411

  • G.R. Nos. 46255, 46256, 46259 & 46277 January 23, 1940 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. A. L. YATCO

    069 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 46472 January 23, 1940 - TAN TIONG TECK v. LA COMISION DE VALORES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 46529 January 23, 1940 - THE ASIATIC PETROLEUM (P. I.) , LTD. v. CO QUICO

    069 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 46764 January 23, 1940 - JOSE S. TIAOQUI, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 46344 January 29, 1940 - JUANA B. VIUDA DE GOLINGCO, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO A. CALLEJA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46373 January 29, 1940 - CARLOS PALANCA v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46429 January 29, 1940 - ANASTACIO R. JESUITAS v. ISIDRO REYES

    069 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 46549 January 29, 1940 - LIM BUN UAN v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 46590 January 29, 1940 - TEODORA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    069 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 46621 January 29, 1940 - GUILLERMO MANLAPIT v. V. FRAGANTE

    069 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 46713 Enero29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. DIONISIO T. FERNANDEZ

    069 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 46865 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LEON R. PAMATI-AN

    069 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 46928 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. BASILIO J. EVANGELISTA

    069 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 46976 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAURICIO G. HONRADEZ

    069 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 46123 January 30, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIXTO ESPINO

    069 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46559 January 30, 1940 - J. A. WOLFSON v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    069 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46564 January 30, 1940 - EULOGIO TRIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    069 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 46853 January 30, 1940 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 45551 January 31, 1940 - IN RE: MARCELINO LONTOK v. PRIMITIVO B. AC-AC

    069 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 46286 January 31, 1940 - GERMAN LIMJAP v. MARIA ESCOLAR VDA. DE LIMJAP, ET AL.

    069 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46979 January 31, 1940 - URSULA ESGUERRA v. LEONORA DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47005 January 31, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO MAÑAGO

    069 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 47008 January 31, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 497