Sadaya vs. Sevilla
Sadaya vs. Sevilla
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
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
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.