Inchausti v Yulo Teodoro Yulo, died testate properties in Iloilo and Negros Occidental 1.

Six of Yulo's children executed the mortgage of August 12, 1909, namely, Gregorio, Pedro, Francisco, Manuel, Carmen, and Concepcion, admitting a debt of P253,445.42 at 10 per cent per annum and mortgaging six-ninths of their hereditary properties (5 installments from June 30th of 1909 to 1914) 2. Due to nonpayment, on March 27, 1911, Inchausti & Company brought an ordinary action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, against Gregorio Yulo for the payment of the said balance. 3. Of the six children who executed the first instrument, Francisco, Manuel and Carmen executed the instrument of May 12, 1911, wherein was obtained a reduction of the capital to 225,000 pesos and of the interest to 6 per cent from the 15th of March of the same year of 1911 4. Per first instrument the maturity of the first installment was June 30, 1910. Per second instrument, Francisco, Manuel, and Carmen had in their favor as the maturity of the first installment of their debt, June 30, 1912 5. By sentencing Gregorio Yulo to pay 253,445 pesos and 42 centavos of August 12, 1909, this debtor, if he should pay all this sum, could not recover from his joint debtors Francisco, Manuel, and Carmen their proportional parts of the P253,445.42 which he had paid, inasmuch as the three were not obligated by virtue of the instrument of May 12, 1911, to pay only 225,000 pesos, thus constituting a violation of Gregorio Yulo's right 6. Wherefore we hold that although the contract of May 12, 1911, has not novated that of August 12, 1909, it has affected that contract and the outcome of the suit brought against Gregorio Yulo alone for the sum of P253,445.42; and in consequence thereof, the amount stated in the contract of August 12, 1909, cannot be recovered but only that stated in the contract of May 12, 1911, by virtue of the remission granted to the three of the solidary debtors in this instrument, in conformity with what is provided in article 1143 of the Civil Code, cited by the creditor itself. *OCC 1204 = NCC Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitute the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other. (1204) *an obligation to pay a sum of money is not novated in a new instrument wherein the old is ratified, by changing only the term of payment and adding other obligations not incompatible with the old one *OCC 1143 = NCC Art. 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1219. ROMERO, J.:

Inciong v CA

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, which disposed of Civil Case No. 10507 for collection of a sum of money and damages, as follows: WHEREFORE, defendant BALDOMERO L. INCIONG, JR. is adjudged solidarily liable and ordered to pay to the plaintiff Philippine Bank of Communications, Cagayan de Oro City, the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), with interest thereon from May 5, 1983 at 16% per annum until fully paid; and 6% per annum on the total amount due, as liquidated damages or penalty from May 5, 1983 until fully paid; plus 10% of the total amount due for expenses of litigation and attorneys fees; and to pay the costs. The counterclaim, as well as the cross claim, are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Petitioners liability resulted from the promissory note in the amount of P50,000.00 which he signed with Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas on February 3, 1983, holding themselves jointly and severally liable to private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications, Cagayan de Oro City branch. The promissory note was due on May 5, 1983. Said due date expired without the promissors having paid their obligation. Consequently, on November 14, 1983 and on June 8, 1984, private respondent sent petitioner telegrams demanding payment thereof. On December 11, 1984 private respondent also sent by registered mail a final letter of demand to Rene C. Naybe. Since both obligors did not respond to the demands made, private respondent filed on January 24, 1986 a complaint for collection of the sum of P50,000.00 against the three obligors. On November 25, 1986, the complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the case. However, on January 9, 1987, the lower court reconsidered the dismissal order and required the sheriff to serve the summonses. On January 27, 1987, the lower court dismissed the case against defendant Pantanosas as prayed for by the private respondent herein. Meanwhile, only the summons addressed to petitioner was served as the sheriff learned that defendant Naybe had gone to Saudi Arabia. In his answer, petitioner alleged that sometime in January 1983, he was approached by his friend, Rudy Campos, who told him that he was a partner of Pio Tio, the branch manager of private respondent in Cagayan de Oro City, in the falcata logs operation business. Campos also intimated to him that Rene C. Naybe was interested in the business and would contribute a chainsaw to the venture. He added that, although Naybe had no money to buy the equipment, Pio Tio had assured Naybe of the approval of a loan he would make with private respondent. Campos then persuaded petitioner to act as a comaker in the said loan. Petitioner allegedly acceded but with the understanding that he would only be a co-maker for the loan of P5,000.00. Petitioner alleged further that five (5) copies of a blank promissory note were brought to him by Campos at his office. He affixed his signature thereto but in one copy, he indicated that he bound himself only for the amount of P5,000.00. Thus, it was by trickery, fraud and misrepresentation that he was made liable for the amount of P50,000.00. In the aforementioned decision of the lower court, it noted that the typewritten figure -50,000- clearly appears directly below the admitted signature of the petitioner in the promissory note. Hence, the latters uncorroborated testimony on his limited liability cannot prevail over the

The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them. (1143)

presumed regularity and fairness of the transaction, under Sec. 5 (q) of Rule 131. The lower court added that it was rather odd for petitioner to have indicated in a copy and not in the original, of the promissory note, his supposed obligation in the amount of P5,000.00 only. Finally, the lower court held that, even granting that said limited amount had actually been agreed upon, the same would have been merely collateral between him and Naybe and, therefore, not binding upon the private respondent as creditor-bank. The lower court also noted that petitioner was a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree and a labor consultant who was supposed to take due care of his concerns, and that, on the witness stand, Pio Tio denied having participated in the alleged business venture although he knew for a fact that the falcata logs operation was encouraged by the bank for its export potential. appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which, in its decision of August 31, 1990, affirmed that of the lower court. His motion for reconsideration of the said decision having been denied, he filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. On February 6, 1991, the Court denied the petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the Rules of Court and paragraph 2 of Circular No. 1-88, and to sufficiently show that respondent court had committed any reversible error in its questioned Decision. His Motion for the Reconsideration of the denial of his Petition was likewise denied with finality in the Resolution of April 24, 1991.Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration which, in the Resolution of May 27, 1991, the Court denied. In the same Resolution, the Court ordered the entry of judgment in this case. Unfazed, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a motion for clarification. In the latter motion, he asserted that he had attached Registry Receipt No. 3268 to page 14 of the petition in compliance with Circular No. 1-88. Thus, on August 7, 1991, the Court granted his prayer that his petition be given due course and reinstated the same. Nonetheless, we fined the petition unmeritorious. Annexed to the petition is a copy of an affidavit executed on May 3, 1988, or after the rendition of the decision of the lower court, by Gregorio Pantanosas, Jr., an MTCC judge and petitioners co-maker in the promissory note. It supports petitioners allegation that they were induced to sign the promissory note no the belief that it was only for P5,000.00, adding that it was Campos who caused the amount of the loan to be increased to P50,000.00. The affidavit is clearly intended to buttress petitioners contention in the instant petition that the Court of Appeals should have declared the promissory note null and void on the following grounds: (a) the promissory note was signed in the office of Judge Pantanosas, outside the premises of the bank; (b) the loan was incurred for the purpose of buying a second-hand chainsaw which cost only P5,000.00; (c) even a new chainsaw would cost only P27,500.00; (d) the loan was not approved by the board or credit committee which was the practice, at it exceeded P5,000.00; (e) the loan had no collateral; (f) petitioner and Judge Pantanosas were not present at the time the loan was released in contravention of the bank practice, and (g) notices of default are sent simultaneously and separately but no notice was validly sent to him. Finally, petitioner contends that in signing the promissory note, his consent was vitiated by fraud as, contrary to their agreement that the loan was only for the amount of P5,000.00, the promissory note stated the amount of P50,000.00.

The above-stated points are clearly factual. Petitioner is to be reminded of the basic rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. Having lost the chance to fully ventilate his factual claims below, petitioner may no longer be accorded the same opportunity in the abuse of discretion on the part of the court below. Had he presented Judge Pantanosas affidavit before the lower court, it would have strengthened his claim that the promissory note did not reflect the correct amount of the loan. Nor is there merit in petitioners assertion that since the promissory note is not a public deed with the formalities prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper which does not bear the signature of attesting witnesses, parol evidence may overcome the contents of the promissory note. The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule states: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the content of the written agreement. Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. What is required is that agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on long experience that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not by in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence. By alleging fraud in his answer, petitioner was actually in the right direction towards proving that he and his co-makers agreed to a loan of P5,000.00 only considering that, where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the inducing and moving cause of the written contract, it may be shown by parol evidence. However, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence, not even being adequate. Petitioners attempt to prove fraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced only by his own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving testimony. Petitioner also argues that the dismissal of the complaint against Naybe, the principal debtor, and against Pantanosas, his co-maker, constituted a release of his obligation, especially because the dismissal of the case against Pantanosas was upon the motion of private respondent itself. He cites as basis for his argument, Article 2080 of the Civil Code which provides that: The guarantors, even though they be solidary, are released from their obligation whenever by come act of the creditor, they cannot be subrogated to the rights, mortgages, and preferences of the latter. It is to be noted, however, that petitioner signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. This is patent even from the first sentence of the promissory note which states as follows:

Ninety one (91) days after date, for value received, I/we, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay to the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS as its office in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P50,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, together with interest at the rate of SIXTEEN (16) per cent per annum until fully paid. A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. On the other hand, Article 2047 of the Civil Code states:

COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS, INC. and ALFREDO CHING, respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Will a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Order suspending, during the pendency of a rehabilitation proceeding, payment of all claims against the principal debtor bar or preclude the creditor from recovering from the surety? Respondents Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) and its Surety, Alfredo Ching, answer in the affirmative; petitioner Bank in the negative. The facts:

By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed, In such a case the contract is called a suretyship. (Emphasis supplied.) While a guarantor may bind himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the liability of a guarantor is different from that of a solidary debtor. Thus, Tolentino explains: A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor under the provisions of the second paragraph does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor, and a fiador in solidum (surety). The later, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of rights than those bestowed upon him in Section 4, Chapter 3, title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code states the law on joint and several obligations. Under Art. 1207 thereof, when there are two or more debtors in one and the same obligation, the presumption is that obligation is joint so that each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt. There is a solidarily liability only when he obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires. Because the promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, the dismissal of the case against Judge Pontanosas may not be deemed as having discharged petitioner from liability as well. As regards Nayve, suffice it to say that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Petitioner, therefore, may only have recourse against his comakers, as provided by law. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is here DENIED and the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. G.R. No. 85396 October 27, 1989 RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

On 4 May 1979, Alfredo Ching signed a 'Comprehensive Surety Agreement' with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), binding himself to jointly and severally guarantee the prompt payment of all PBM obligations owing RCBC in the aggregate sum of Forty Million (P40,000,000.00) Pesos. Between 8 September to 30 October 1980, PBM filed several applications for letters of credit with RCBC. Through said applications, PBM obligated itself, among other things, to pay on demand for all draft(s) drawn under or purporting to be drawn under the credits. Everything being in order, RCBC opened the corresponding letters of credit and imported various goods for PBM's account. In due time the imported goods arrived and were released, in trust, to PBM who acknowledged receipt thereof through various trust receipts. All in all, PBM's obligations stood at P7,982,649.08. Less than a year later, or on 7 August 1981, RCBC filed a Complaint for collection of said sum against respondents PBM and Alfredo Ching with the then Court of First Instance of Pasig, docketed as CV-42333. Upon filing of a bond satisfactory to the Court, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued against the assets and properties of respondents PBM and Ching on the same day. By way of special and affirmative defenses they alleged that "although the trust receipts stipulate due dates, the true intent and agreement of the parties was that the maturity dates of the trust receipts were to be extended at the end of the stipulated dates, as had been the customary practice of RCBC with PBM." On 23 September 1981, PBM and Ching moved to discharge the attachment, which RCBC opposed. On 4 December 1981 the Court issued an Order lifting the attachment upon their filing of a satisfactory counter-bond. Meanwhile, on 1 April 1982, PBM filed a Petition for Suspension of Payments with the Securities and Exchange Commission, docketed as SEC Case No. 2250, seeking at the same time its rehabilitation. In an injunctive Order, dated 6 July 1982, all actions for claims against PBM pending before any Court or tribunal, in whatever stage the same may have been, were ordered suspended by the SEC in order to give the Commission the opportunity to pass upon the feasibility of any rehabilitation plans. And on 26 April 1988, SEC approved the revised rehabilitation plan and ordered its implementation. On 14 October 1982, RCBC pursued its claims with the Trial Court and filed, unopposed, a Motion for Summary Judgment in CV-42333, a motion for extension to file said opposition having been earlier withdrawn. RCBC contended that respondents PBM and Ching had not

denied their indebtedness to RCBC and, therefore, no genuine issue was raised in the pleadings. On 25 November 1982, the CFI rendered such summary judgment** in RCBC's favor, declaring: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants (PBM and Ching) in favor of plaintiff (RCBC) ordering defendants to pay plaintiff jointly and severally the following: a) P7,982,649.08 inclusive of interest, service charges and penalties as of August 7, 1981 on account of their liability in solidum arising from the trust receipts and comprehensive surety agreements plus such other additional amount by way of interest, service charges and penalties from August 7,1981 until fully paid; and b) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. With costs against the defendants. On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals,*** ruling that it was precipitate and improper for the lower Court to have continued with the proceedings despite the SEC Order of suspension, set aside the lower Court Decision and ordered it to hold in abeyance the determination of the merits invoked in CV-42333 pending the outcome of SEC Case No. 2250. On 6 October 1988, the Appellate Court denied RCBC's Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition for Review, to which we gave due course on 31 May 1989, and required the filing of Memoranda by the parties, the last of which was submitted on 27 July 1989. RCBC takes the position that the SEC injunctive Order pertains and affects only PBM, the corporation under rehabilitation, and that its right, as creditor, to proceed against respondent Ching, as Surety, is not affected by said Order. In fine, RCBC avers that to hold the injunctive Order applicable to both respondents PBM and Ching is to deprive RCBC of its right to proceed against the Surety based on the latter's separate and independent undertaking. PBM and Ching counter that the liabilities incurred by PBM were corporate in character and, hence, as a corporate officer, Alfredo Ching cannot be held liable therefor; that the pendency of SEC Case No. 2250 and the rendition of an Order therein on 26 April 1988 implementing respondent PBM's rehabilitation plan must necessarily benefit the Surety, inasmuch as payment of PBM obligations must be made pursuant to that plan; and that the liability of the Surety cannot be more than what would remain after payment of all the obligations of the principal. Moreover, they continue, it is usual for majority stockholders to act as co-signors with their respective corporations where promissory notes, collaterals or guaranty or security agreements are involved. Respondent Ching's action may, it is claimed, be classified as a corporate act. Under the attendant facts and circumstances, we answer the question earlier posed in the negative. Where an obligation expressly states a solidary liability, the concurrence of two or more creditors or two or more debtors in one and the same obligation implies that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation (Article 1207, Civil Code). The creditor may proceed against

any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously (Article 1216, Civil Code). That there exists a Comprehensive Surety Agreement between RCBC and respondent Ching is admitted. There is no escaping the attendant liability that binds respondent Ching, as Surety. He is charged as an original promissor by virtue of his primary obligation under the Suretyship Agreement. That Agreement is bare of words imputing to respondent Ching any liability other than that of a Surety who binds himself to insure a debt in his personal capacity, lacking consideration therefor notwithstanding (p. 94, Original Record). That respondent Ching acted for and on behalf of respondent PBM as part of its usual corporate procedure is not supported by the evidence nor the pleadings on record, nor the Agreement itself .We can not give any additional meaning to the plain language of the subject agreement. It is basic that the parties are bound by the terms of their contract, which is the law between them. As held in Zenith Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals , the extent of a surety's liability is determined only by the clause of the contract of suretyship. It cannot be extended by implication, beyond the terms of the contract. Conversely, liability therefor may not be restricted unless expressly so stated. Neither can respondent Ching seek refuge behind the SEC injunctive Order. Under Section 3 of P.D. 902-A, as amended by P.D. 1758, the Commission is given absolute jurisdiction, supervision and control only over corporations or associations, which are grantees of a primary franchise and/or a license or permit issued by the government to operate in the Philippines. The SEC injunctive Order can not effect a suspension of payment of respondent Surety's due and demandable obligation, it being clear therefrom that the rehabilitation receivers were limited "to tak(ing) custody and control over all the existing assets and property of PBM." Nothing in said Order puts respondent Ching within its scope. To further avoid payment of their obligation, PBM and Ching allege a customary extension given by petitioner in PBM's favor, which, it is averred, must necessarily benefit the Surety. Suffice it to say that the summary judgment made by the lower Court offers an acceptable explanation finding respondents' obligation as matured and demandable. Thus: The trust receipts from No. 2042 to 2100 in the schedule (pages 2 and 3, complaint) shows that the maturity dates thereof vary from May 12, 1981 at the latest and February 19, 1981 at the earliest. The alleged agreement to extend, granting its existence, obviously would have had a much earlier date than the maturity dates of the trust receipts and considering that the instant case was brought on August 7, 1981, there should have been, to say the least, representation made prior to the maturity dates or at least on the dates of maturity thereof. But it has not even been alleged by defendants that such representations were made by defendants. It is too far fetched to rule that the Court will grant an extension of time to pay, when no such extension has ever been requested by defendants. The obligation, therefore, is covered by Article 1193 of the Civil Code and hence, demandable when the day comes (pp. 199-200, Original Record). The lower Court correctly found the case to be without any genuine issue of fact and ripe for summary judgment. Respondents' bare allegation of customary extensions is not corroborated by any documentary evidence but remains plain self-serving assertions. In fine, the SEC injunctive Order is of no effect as far as the respondent Surety, Alfredo Ching, is concerned. He can be sued separately to

enforce his liability as Surety for PBM (Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 78412, September 26, 1989). WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 30 June 1988, and its Resolution denying reconsideration thereof, dated 6 October 1988, are SET ASIDE. The judgment of the lower Court is hereby REINSTATED and made executory as far as respondent, Alfredo Ching, is concerned. Costs against private respondents, Philippine Blooming Mills and Alfredo Ching.

CCC. Fearful that nonpayment to APT would result in the foreclosure, not just of its properties covered by the SPA with Lafarge but of several other properties as well, CCC filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on June 20, 2000, a "Complaint with Application for Preliminary Attachment" against petitioners. Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-41103, the Complaint prayed, among others, that petitioners be directed to pay the "APT Retained Amount" referred to in Clause 2 (c) of the SPA. Petitioners moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that it violated the prohibition on forum-shopping. Respondent CCC had allegedly made the same claim it was raising in Civil Case No. Q-00-41103 in another action, which involved the same parties and which was filed earlier before the International Chamber of Commerce. After the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss in its November 14, 2000 Order, petitioners elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 68688. In the meantime, to avoid being in default and without prejudice to the outcome of their appeal, petitioners filed their Answer and Compulsory Counterclaims ad Cautelam before the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-0041103. In their Answer, they denied the allegations in the Complaint. They prayed -- by way of compulsory counterclaims against Respondent CCC, its majority stockholder and president Gregory T. Lim, and its corporate secretary Anthony A. Mariano -- for the sums of (a) P2,700,000 each as actual damages, (b) P100,000,000 each as exemplary damages, (c) P100,000,000 each as moral damages, and (d) P5,000,000 each as attorney's fees plus costs of suit. Petitioners alleged that CCC, through Lim and Mariano, had filed the "baseless" Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-00-41103 and procured the Writ of Attachment in bad faith. Relying on this Court's pronouncement in Sapugay v. CA,5 petitioners prayed that both Lim and Mariano be held "jointly and solidarily" liable with Respondent CCC. On behalf of Lim and Mariano who had yet to file any responsive pleading, CCC moved to dismiss petitioners' compulsory counterclaims on grounds that essentially constituted the very issues for resolution in the instant Petition. Ruling of the Trial Court On May 22, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 80) dismissed petitioners' counterclaims for several reasons, among which were the following: a) the counterclaims against Respondents Lim and Mariano were not compulsory; b) the ruling in Sapugay was not applicable; and c) petitioners' Answer with Counterclaims violated procedural rules on the proper joinder of causes of action.6 Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, the trial court -- in an Amended Order dated September 3, 20027 -- admitted some errors in its May 22, 2002 Order, particularly in its pronouncement that their counterclaim had been pleaded against Lim and Mariano only. However, the RTC clarified that it was dismissing the counterclaim insofar as it impleaded Respondents Lim and Mariano, even if it included CCC. Hence this Petition.8 Issues In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration: "[a] Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in refusing to rule that Respondent CCC has no personality to move to dismiss petitioners' compulsory counterclaims on Respondents Lim and Mariano's behalf. "[b] Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in ruling that (i) petitioners' counterclaims against Respondents Lim and Mariano are not compulsory; (ii) Sapugay v. Court of Appeals is inapplicable

G.R. No. 155173

November 23, 2004

LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., (formerly Lafarge Philippines, Inc.), LUZON CONTINENTAL LAND CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORPORATION and PHILIP ROSEBERG, petitioners, vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGORY T. LIM and ANTHONY A. MARIANO, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: May defendants in civil cases implead in their counterclaims persons who were not parties to the original complaints? This is the main question to be answered in this controversy. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the May 22, 20022 and the September 3, 2002 Orders3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 80) in Civil Case No. Q-00-41103. The decretal portion of the first assailed Order reads: "WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing as earlier stated, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss claims is granted. Accordingly, the defendants' claims against Mr. Lim and Mr. Mariano captioned as their counterclaims are dismissed."4 The second challenged Order denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts Briefly, the origins of the present controversy can be traced to the Letter of Intent (LOI) executed by both parties on August 11, 1998, whereby Petitioner Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. (Lafarge) -- on behalf of its affiliates and other qualified entities, including Petitioner Luzon Continental Land Corporation (LCLC) -- agreed to purchase the cement business of Respondent Continental Cement Corporation (CCC). On October 21, 1998, both parties entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). At the time of the foregoing transactions, petitioners were well aware that CCC had a case pending with the Supreme Court. The case was docketed as GR No. 119712, entitled Asset Privatization Trust (APT) v. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation. In anticipation of the liability that the High Tribunal might adjudge against CCC, the parties, under Clause 2 (c) of the SPA, allegedly agreed to retain from the purchase price a portion of the contract price in the amount of P117,020,846.84 -- the equivalent of US$2,799,140. This amount was to be deposited in an interest-bearing account in the First National City Bank of New York (Citibank) for payment to APT, the petitioner in GR No. 119712. However, petitioners allegedly refused to apply the sum to the payment to APT, despite the subsequent finality of the Decision in GR No. 119712 in favor of the latter and the repeated instructions of Respondent

here; and (iii) petitioners violated the rule on joinder of causes of action."9 For clarity and coherence, the Court will resolve the foregoing in reverse order. The Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. First Issue: Counterclaims and Joinder of Causes of Action. Petitioners' Counterclaims Compulsory Counterclaims are defined in Section 6 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as "any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party." They are generally allowed in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to facilitate the disposition of the whole controversy in a single action, such that the defendant's demand may be adjudged by a counterclaim rather than by an independent suit. The only limitations to this principle are (1) that the court should have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the counterclaim, and (2) that it could acquire jurisdiction over third parties whose presence is essential for its adjudication.10 A counterclaim may either be permissive or compulsory. It is permissive "if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim."11 A permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case. A counterclaim is compulsory when its object "arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction."12 Unlike permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action; otherwise, they would be barred forever. NAMARCO v. Federation of United Namarco Distributors13 laid down the following criteria to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive: 1) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? 3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's counterclaim? 4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory. Adopted in Quintanilla v. CA and reiterated in Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation,15 the "compelling test of compulsoriness" characterizes a counterclaim as compulsory if there should exist a "logical relationship" between the main claim and the counterclaim. There exists such a relationship when conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail substantial duplication of time and effort by the parties and the court; when the multiple claims involve the same factual and legal issues; or when the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy between the parties. We shall now examine the nature of petitioners' counterclaims against respondents with the use of the foregoing parameters. Petitioners base their counterclaim on the following allegations: "Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano were the persons responsible for making the bad faith decisions for, and causing plaintiff to file this baseless suit and to procure an unwarranted writ of attachment, notwithstanding their knowledge that plaintiff has no right to bring it or to secure the writ. In taking such bad faith actions, Gregory T. Lim was motivated by his personal interests as
14

one of the owners of plaintiff while Anthony A. Mariano was motivated by his sense of personal loyalty to Gregory T. Lim, for which reason he disregarded the fact that plaintiff is without any valid cause. "Consequently, both Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano are the plaintiff's co-joint tortfeasors in the commission of the acts complained of in this answer and in the compulsory counterclaims pleaded below. As such they should be held jointly and solidarily liable as plaintiff's co-defendants to those compulsory counterclaims pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sapugay v. Mobil. xxx xxx xxx "The plaintiff's, Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano's bad faith filing of this baseless case has compelled the defendants to engage the services of counsel for a fee and to incur costs of litigation, in amounts to be proved at trial, but in no case less than P5 million for each of them and for which plaintiff Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano should be held jointly and solidarily liable. "The plaintiff's, Gregory T. Lim's and Anthony A. Mariano's actions have damaged the reputations of the defendants and they should be held jointly and solidarily liable to them for moral damages of P100 million each. "In order to serve as an example for the public good and to deter similar baseless, bad faith litigation, the plaintiff, Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano should be held jointly and solidarily liable to the defendants for exemplary damages of P100 million each." 16 The above allegations show that petitioners' counterclaims for damages were the result of respondents' (Lim and Mariano) act of filing the Complaint and securing the Writ of Attachment in bad faith. Tiu Po v. Bautista17 involved the issue of whether the counterclaim that sought moral, actual and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against respondents on account of their "malicious and unfounded" complaint was compulsory. In that case, we held as follows: "Petitioners' counterclaim for damages fulfills the necessary requisites of a compulsory counterclaim. They are damages claimed to have been suffered by petitioners as a consequence of the action filed against them. They have to be pleaded in the same action; otherwise, petitioners would be precluded by the judgment from invoking the same in an independent action. The pronouncement in Papa vs. Banaag (17 SCRA 1081) (1966) is in point: "Compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, allegedly suffered by the creditor in consequence of the debtor's action, are also compulsory counterclaim barred by the dismissal of the debtor's action. They cannot be claimed in a subsequent action by the creditor against the debtor." "Aside from the fact that petitioners' counterclaim for damages cannot be the subject of an independent action, it is the same evidence that sustains petitioners' counterclaim that will refute private respondent's own claim for damages. This is an additional factor that characterizes petitioners' counterclaim as compulsory."18 Moreover, using the "compelling test of compulsoriness," we find that, clearly, the recovery of petitioners' counterclaims is contingent upon the case filed by respondents; thus, conducting separate trials thereon will result in a substantial duplication of the time and effort of the court and the parties. Since the counterclaim for damages is compulsory, it must be set up in the same action; otherwise, it would be barred forever. If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different proceeding, it would

be abated on the ground of litis pendentia; if filed subsequently, it would meet the same fate on the ground of res judicata.19 Sapugay v. Court of Appeals Applicable to the Case at Bar Sapugay v. Court of Appeals finds application in the present case. In Sapugay, Respondent Mobil Philippines filed before the trial court of Pasig an action for replevin against Spouses Marino and Lina Joel Sapugay. The Complaint arose from the supposed failure of the couple to keep their end of their Dealership Agreement. In their Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners alleged that after incurring expenses in anticipation of the Dealership Agreement, they requested the plaintiff to allow them to get gas, but that it had refused. It claimed that they still had to post a surety bond which, initially fixed at P200,000, was later raised to P700,000. The spouses exerted all efforts to secure a bond, but the bonding companies required a copy of the Dealership Agreement, which respondent continued to withhold from them. Later, petitioners discovered that respondent and its manager, Ricardo P. Cardenas, had intended all along to award the dealership to Island Air Product Corporation. In their Answer, petitioners impleaded in the counterclaim Mobil Philippines and its manager -- Ricardo P. Cardenas -- as defendants. They prayed that judgment be rendered, holding both jointly and severally liable for pre-operation expenses, rental, storage, guarding fees, and unrealized profit including damages. After both Mobil and Cardenas failed to respond to their Answer to the Counterclaim, petitioners filed a "Motion to Declare Plaintiff and its Manager Ricardo P. Cardenas in Default on Defendant's Counterclaim." Among the issues raised in Sapugay was whether Cardenas, who was not a party to the original action, might nevertheless be impleaded in the counterclaim. We disposed of this issue as follows: "A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. However, the general rule that a defendant cannot by a counterclaim bring into the action any claim against persons other than the plaintiff admits of an exception under Section 14, Rule 6 which provides that 'when the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.' The inclusion, therefore, of Cardenas in petitioners' counterclaim is sanctioned by the rules."20 The prerogative of bringing in new parties to the action at any stage before judgment is intended to accord complete relief to all of them in a single action and to avert a duplicity and even a multiplicity of suits thereby. In insisting on the inapplicability of Sapugay, respondents argue that new parties cannot be included in a counterclaim, except when no complete relief can be had. They add that "[i]n the present case, Messrs. Lim and Mariano are not necessary for petitioners to obtain complete relief from Respondent CCC as plaintiff in the lower court. This is because Respondent CCC as a corporation with a separate [legal personality] has the juridical capacity to indemnify petitioners even without Messrs. Lim and Mariano."21 We disagree. The inclusion of a corporate officer or stockholder -Cardenas in Sapugay or Lim and Mariano in the instant case -- is not premised on the assumption that the plaintiff corporation does not have the financial ability to answer for damages, such that it has to share its liability with individual defendants. Rather, such inclusion is based on the allegations of fraud and bad faith on the part of the corporate officer or stockholder. These allegations may warrant the piercing of the veil of

corporate fiction, so that the said individual may not seek refuge therein, but may be held individually and personally liable for his or her actions. In Tramat Mercantile v. Court of Appeals,22 the Court held that generally, it should only be the corporation that could properly be held liable. However, circumstances may warrant the inclusion of the personal liability of a corporate director, trustee, or officer, if the said individual is found guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing corporate affairs. Remo Jr. v. IAC23 has stressed that while a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders, the corporate fiction may be disregarded if "used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime." In these instances, "the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in case of two corporations, will merge them into one." Thus, there is no debate on whether, in alleging bad faith on the part of Lim and Mariano the counterclaims had in effect made them "indispensable parties" thereto; based on the alleged facts, both are clearly parties in interest to the counterclaim.24 Respondents further assert that "Messrs. Lim and Mariano cannot be held personally liable [because their assailed acts] are within the powers granted to them by the proper board resolutions; therefore, it is not a personal decision but rather that of the corporation as represented by its board of directors."25 The foregoing assertion, however, is a matter of defense that should be threshed out during the trial; whether or not "fraud" is extant under the circumstances is an issue that must be established by convincing evidence.26 Suability and liability are two distinct matters. While the Court does rule that the counterclaims against Respondent CCC's president and manager may be properly filed, the determination of whether both can in fact be held jointly and severally liable with respondent corporation is entirely another issue that should be ruled upon by the trial court. However, while a compulsory counterclaim may implead persons not parties to the original complaint, the general rule -- a defendant in a compulsory counterclaim need not file any responsive pleading, as it is deemed to have adopted the allegations in the complaint as its answer -does not apply. The filing of a responsive pleading is deemed a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court; a new party impleaded by the plaintiff in a compulsory counterclaim cannot be considered to have automatically and unknowingly submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A contrary ruling would result in mischievous consequences whereby a party may be indiscriminately impleaded as a defendant in a compulsory counterclaim; and judgment rendered against it without its knowledge, much less participation in the proceedings, in blatant disregard of rudimentary due process requirements. The correct procedure in instances such as this is for the trial court, per Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, to "order [such impleaded parties] to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained," by directing that summons be served on them. In this manner, they can be properly appraised of and answer the charges against them. Only upon service of summons can the trial court obtain jurisdiction over them. In Sapugay, Cardenas was furnished a copy of the Answer with Counterclaim, but he did not file any responsive pleading to the counterclaim leveled against him. Nevertheless, the Court gave due consideration to certain factual circumstances, particularly the trial court's treatment of the Complaint as the Answer of Cardenas to the compulsory counterclaim and of his seeming acquiescence thereto, as evidenced by his failure to make any objection despite his active participation in the proceedings. It was held thus: "It is noteworthy that Cardenas did not file a motion to dismiss the counterclaim against him on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. While it is a settled rule that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised

even for the first time on appeal, this does not obtain in the instant case. Although it was only Mobil which filed an opposition to the motion to declare in default, the fact that the trial court denied said motion, both as to Mobil and Cardenas on the ground that Mobil's complaint should be considered as the answer to petitioners' compulsory counterclaim, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the trial court treated the opposition as having been filed in behalf of both Mobil and Cardenas and that the latter had adopted as his answer the allegations raised in the complaint of Mobil. Obviously, it was this ratiocination which led the trial court to deny the motion to declare Mobil and Cardenas in default. Furthermore, Cardenas was not unaware of said incidents and the proceedings therein as he testified and was present during trial, not to speak of the fact that as manager of Mobil he would necessarily be interested in the case and could readily have access to the records and the pleadings filed therein. "By adopting as his answer the allegations in the complaint which seeks affirmative relief, Cardenas is deemed to have recognized the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person and submitted thereto. He may not now be heard to repudiate or question that jurisdiction."27 Such factual circumstances are unavailing in the instant case. The records do not show that Respondents Lim and Mariano are either aware of the counterclaims filed against them, or that they have actively participated in the proceedings involving them. Further, in dismissing the counterclaims against the individual respondents, the court a quo -- unlike in Sapugay -- cannot be said to have treated Respondent CCC's Motion to Dismiss as having been filed on their behalf. Rules on Permissive Joinder of Causes of Action or Parties Not Applicable Respondent CCC contends that petitioners' counterclaims violated the rule on joinder of causes of action. It argues that while the original Complaint was a suit for specific performance based on a contract, the counterclaim for damages was based on the tortuous acts of respondents.28 In its Motion to Dismiss, CCC cites Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which we quote: "Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; x x x" Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest." The foregoing procedural rules are founded on practicality and convenience. They are meant to discourage duplicity and multiplicity of suits. This objective is negated by insisting -- as the court a quo has done -- that the compulsory counterclaim for damages be dismissed, only to have it possibly re-filed in a separate proceeding. More important, as we have stated earlier, Respondents Lim and Mariano are real parties in interest to the compulsory counterclaim; it is imperative that they be joined therein. Section 7 of Rule 3 provides:

"Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants." Moreover, in joining Lim and Mariano in the compulsory counterclaim, petitioners are being consistent with the solidary nature of the liability alleged therein. Second Issue: CCC's Personality to Move to Dismiss the Compulsory Counterclaims Characterizing their counterclaim for damages against Respondents CCC, Lim and Mariano as "joint and solidary," petitioners prayed: "WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after trial judgment be rendered: "1. Dismissing the complaint in its entirety; "2. Ordering the plaintiff, Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano jointly and solidarily to pay defendant actual damages in the sum of at least P2,700,000.00; "3. Ordering the plaintiff, Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A, Mariano jointly and solidarily to pay the defendants LPI, LCLC, COC and Roseberg: "a. Exemplary damages of P100 million each; "b. Moral damages of P100 million each; and "c. Attorney's fees and costs of suit of at least P5 million each. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for."29 Obligations may be classified as either joint or solidary. "Joint" or "jointly" or "conjoint" means mancum or mancomunada or pro rata obligation; on the other hand, "solidary obligations" may be used interchangeably with "joint and several" or "several." Thus, petitioners' usage of the term "joint and solidary" is confusing and ambiguous. The ambiguity in petitioners' counterclaims notwithstanding, respondents' liability, if proven, is solidary. This characterization finds basis in Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which provides that obligations are generally considered joint, except when otherwise expressly stated or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. However, obligations arising from tort are, by their nature, always solidary. We have assiduously maintained this legal principle as early as 1912 in Worcester v. Ocampo,30 in which we held: "x x x The difficulty in the contention of the appellants is that they fail to recognize that the basis of the present action is tort. They fail to recognize the universal doctrine that each joint tort feasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tort feasors. x x x "It may be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. x x x "Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit. The persons injured may sue all of them or any number less than all. Each is liable for the whole damages caused by all, and all together are jointly liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued alone, that the others who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him as defendants; nor is it any excuse for him that his participation in the tort was insignificant as compared to that of the others. x x x "Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among themselves. They cannot

insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount. x x x "A payment in full for the damage done, by one of the joint tort feasors, of course satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. There can be but satisfaction. The release of one of the joint tort feasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. x x x "Of course the court during trial may find that some of the alleged tort feasors are liable and that others are not liable. The courts may release some for lack of evidence while condemning others of the alleged tort feasors. And this is true even though they are charged jointly and severally." In a "joint" obligation, each obligor answers only for a part of the whole liability; in a "solidary" or "joint and several" obligation, the relationship between the active and the passive subjects is so close that each of them must comply with or demand the fulfillment of the whole obligation.31 The fact that the liability sought against the CCC is for specific performance and tort, while that sought against the individual respondents is based solely on tort does not negate the solidary nature of their liability for tortuous acts alleged in the counterclaims. Article 1211 of the Civil Code is explicit on this point: "Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions." The solidary character of respondents' alleged liability is precisely why credence cannot be given to petitioners' assertion. According to such assertion, Respondent CCC cannot move to dismiss the counterclaims on grounds that pertain solely to its individual co-debtors.32 In cases filed by the creditor, a solidary debtor may invoke defenses arising from the nature of the obligation, from circumstances personal to it, or even from those personal to its co-debtors. Article 1222 of the Civil Code provides: "A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail itself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible." (Emphasis supplied). The act of Respondent CCC as a solidary debtor -- that of filing a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on grounds that pertain only to its individual co-debtors -- is therefore allowed. However, a perusal of its Motion to Dismiss the counterclaims shows that Respondent CCC filed it on behalf of Co-respondents Lim and Mariano; it did not pray that the counterclaim against it be dismissed. Be that as it may, Respondent CCC cannot be declared in default. Jurisprudence teaches that if the issues raised in the compulsory counterclaim are so intertwined with the allegations in the complaint, such issues are deemed automatically joined.33 Counterclaims that are only for damages and attorney's fees and that arise from the filing of the complaint shall be considered as special defenses and need not be answered.34 CCC's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim on Behalf of Respondents Lim and Mariano Not Allowed While Respondent CCC can move to dismiss the counterclaims against it by raising grounds that pertain to individual defendants Lim and Mariano, it cannot file the same Motion on their behalf for the simple reason that it lacks the requisite authority to do so. A corporation has a legal personality entirely separate and distinct from that of its officers and cannot act for and on their behalf, without being so authorized. Thus, unless expressly adopted by Lim and Mariano, the Motion to Dismiss the compulsory counterclaim filed by Respondent CCC has no force and effect as to them.

In summary, we make the following pronouncements: 1. The counterclaims against Respondents CCC, Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano are compulsory. 2. The counterclaims may properly implead Respondents Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano, even if both were not parties in the original Complaint. 3. Respondent CCC or any of the three solidary debtors (CCC, Lim or Mariano) may include, in a Motion to Dismiss, defenses available to their co-defendants; nevertheless, the same Motion cannot be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the said codefendants. 4. Summons must be served on Respondents Lim and Mariano before the trial court can obtain jurisdiction over them. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Orders REVERSED. The court of origin is hereby ORDERED to take cognizance of the counterclaims pleaded in petitioners' Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims and to cause the service of summons on Respondents Gregory T. Lim and Anthony A. Mariano. No costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-11307 October 5, 1918

ROMAN JAUCIAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO QUEROL, administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Hermenegildo Rogero,defendant-appellee. STREET, J.: This appeal by bill of exceptions was brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay whereby said court has refused to allow a claim in favor of the plaintiff, Roman Jaucian, against the state of Hermenegilda Rogero upon the facts hereinbelow stated. In October, 1908, Lino Dayandante and Hermenegilda Rogero executed a private writing in which they acknowledged themselves to be indebted to Roman Jaucian in the sum of P13,332.33. The terms of this obligation are fully set out at page 38 of the bill of exceptions. Its first clause is in the following words: We jointly and severally acknowledge our indebtedness in the sum of P13,332.23 Philippine currency (a balance made October 23, 1908) bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to Roman Jaucian, of age, a resident of the municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay, Philippine Islands and married to Pilar Tell. Hermenegilda Rogero signed this document in the capacity of surety for Lino Dayandante; but as clearly appears from the instrument itself both debtors bound themselves jointly and severally to the creditor, and there is nothing in the terms of the obligation itself to show that the relation between the two debtors was that of principal and surety. In November, 1909, Hermenegilda Rogero brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Albay against Jaucian, asking that the document in question be canceled as to her upon the ground that her signature was obtained by means of fraud. In his answer to the complaint, Jaucian, by was of cross-complaint, asked for judgment against the plaintiff for the amount due upon the obligation, which appears to have matured at that time. Judgment was rendered in the

Court of First Instance in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. In his appeal to this court, Jaucian did not assign as error the failure of the lower court to give him judgment on his cross-demand, and therefore the decision upon the appeal was limited to the issues concerning the validity of the document. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Hermenegilda Rogero died and the administrator of her estate was substituted as the party plaintiff and appellee. On November 25, 1913, the Supreme Court rendered in its decision reversing the judgment of the trial court and holding that the disputed claim was valid. 1 During the pendency of the appeal, proceedings were had in the Court of First Instance of Albay for the administration of the estate of Hermenegilda Rogero; Francisco Querol was named administrator; and a committee was appointed to pass upon claims against the estate. This committee made its report on September 3, 1912. On March 24, 1914, or about a year and half after the filing of the report of the committee on claims against the Rogero estate, Jaucian entered an appearance in the estate proceedings, and filed with the court a petition in which he averred the execution of the document of October, 1908, by the deceased, the failure of her co-obligor Dayandante, to pay any part of the debt, except P100 received from him in March, 1914, and the complete insolvency of Dayandante. Upon these facts Jaucian prayed the court for an order directing the administrator of the Rogero estate to pay him the principal sum of P13,332.33, plus P7,221.66, as interest thereon from October 24, 1908, to March 24, 1914, with interest on the principal sum of P13,332.33, plus P7,221.66, as interest thereon from October 24, 1908, to March 24, 1914, with interest on the principal sum from March 24, 1914, at 10 per cent per annum, until paid. A copy of this petition was served upon the administrator of the estate, who, on March 30, 1914, appeared by his attorney and opposed the granting of the petition upon the grounds that the claim had never been presented to the committee on claims for allowance; that more than eighteen months had passed since the filing of the report of the committee, and that the court was therefore without jurisdiction to entertain the demand of the claimant. A hearing was had upon the petition before the Honorable P.M. Moir, then sitting in the Court of First Instance of Albay. On April 13, 1914, he rendered his decision, in which, after reciting the facts substantially as above set forth, he said: During the pendency of that action (the cancellation suit) in the Supreme Court Hermenegilda Rogero died, and Francisco Querol was named administrator of the estate, and he was made a party defendant to the action then pending in the Supreme Court. As such he had full knowledge of the claim presented and was given an opportunity to make his defense. It is presumed that defense was made in the Supreme Court. No contingent claim was filed before the commissioners by Roman Jaucian, who seems to have rested content with the action pending. Section 746 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the presentation of contingent claims, against the estate. This claim is a contingent claim, because, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, Hermenegilda Rogero was a surety of Lino Dayandante. The object of presenting the claim to the commissioners is simply to allow them to pass on the claim and to give the administrator an opportunity to defend the estate against the claim. This having been given by the administrator defending the suit in the Supreme Court, the court considers this a substantial

compliance with the law, and the said defense having been made by the administrator, he cannot now come into court and hide behind a technicality and say that the claim had not been presented to the commissioners and that, the commissioners having long since made report, the claim cannot be referred to the commissioners and therefore the claim of Roman Jaucian is barred. The court considers that paragraph (e) of the opposition is well-taken and that there must be legal action taken against Lino Dayandante to determine whether or not he is insolvent, and that declaration under oath to the effect that he has no property except P100 worth of property, which he has ceded to Roman Jaucian, is not sufficient. Hermenegilda Rogero having been simply surety for Lino Dayandante, the administrator has a right to require that Roman Jaucian produce a judgment for his claim against Lino Dayandante, in order that the said administrator may be subrogated to the rights of Jaucian against Dayandante. The simple affidavit of the principal debtor that he had no property except P100 worth of property which he has ceded to the creditor is not sufficient for the court to order the surety to pay the debt of the principal. When this action shall have been taken against Lino Dayandante and an execution returned "no effects," then the claim of Jaucian against the estate will be ordered paid or any balance that may be due to him. Acting upon the suggestions contained in this order Jaucian brought an action against Dayandante and recovered a judgment against him for the full amount of the obligation evidenced by the document of October 24, 1908. Execution was issued upon this judgment, but was returned by the sheriff wholly unsatisfied, no property of the judgment debtor having been found. On October 28, 1914, counsel for Jaucian filed another petition in the proceedings upon the estate of Hermenegilda Rogero, in which they averred, upon the grounds last stated, that Dayandante was insolvent, and renewed the prayer of the original petition. It was contended that the court, by its order of April 13, 1914, had "admitted the claim." The petition was again opposed by the administrator of the estate upon the grounds (a) that the claim was not admitted by the order of April 13, 1914, and that "the statement of the court with regard to the admissibility of the claim was mere dictum," and (b) "that the said claim during the life and after the death of Hermenegilda Rogero, which occurred on August 2, 1911, was a mere contingent claim against the property of the said Hermenegilda Rogero, was not reduced to judgment during the lifetime of said Hermenegilda Rogero, and was not presented to the commissioners on claims during the period of six months from which they were appointed in this estate, said commissioner having given due and lawful notice of their sessions and more than one year having expired since the report of the said commissioners; and this credit is outlawed or prescribed, and that this court has no jurisdiction to consider this claim." On November 24, 1914, the Honorable J. C. Jenkins, then sitting in the Court of First Instance of Albay, after hearing argument, entered an order refusing to grant Jaucian's petition. To this ruling the appellant excepted and moved for a rehearing. On December 11, 1914, the judge a quo entered an order denying the rehearing and setting forth at length, the reasons upon which he based his denial of the petition. These grounds were briefly, that as the claim had never been presented to the committee on claims, it was barred; that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it; that the decision of the Supreme Court in the action brought by the deceased against Jaucian did not decide anything except that the document therein disputed was a valid instrument.

In this court the appellant contends that the trial judge erred (a) in refusing to give effect to the order made by the Honorable P.M. Moir, dated April 13, 1914; and (b) in refusing to order the administrator of the estate of Hermenegilda Rogero to pay the appellant the amount demanded by him. The contention with regard to the order of April 13, 1914, is that no appeal from it having been taken, it became final. An examination of the order in question, however, leads us to conclude that it was not a final order, and therefore it was not appealable. In effect, it held that whatever rights Jaucian might have against the estate of Rogero were subject to the performance of a condition precedent, namely, that he should first exhaust this remedy against Dayandante. The court regarded Dayandante. The court regarded Dayandante as the principal debtor, and the deceased as a surety only liable for such deficiency as might result after the exhaustion of the assets of the principal co-obligor. The pivotal fact upon which the order was based was the failure of appellant to show that he had exhausted his remedy against Dayandante, and this failure the court regarded as a complete bar to the granting of the petition at that time. The court made no order requiring the appellee to make any payment whatever, and that part of the opinion, upon which the order was based, which contained statements of what the court intended to do when the petition should be renewed, was not binding upon him or any other judge by whom he might be succeeded. Regardless of what may be our views with respect to the jurisdiction of the court to have granted the relief demanded by appellant in any event, it is quite clear from what we have stated that the order of April 13, 1914, required no action by the administrator at that time, was not final, and therefore was not appealable. We therefore conclude that no rights were conferred by the said order of April 13, 1914, and that it did not preclude the administrator from making opposition to the petition of the appellant when it was renewed. Appellant contends that his claim against the deceased was contingent. His theory is that the deceased was merely a surety of Dayandante. His argument is that as section 746 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that contingent claims "may be presented with the proof to the committee," it follows that such presentation is optional. Appellant, furthermore, contends that if a creditor holding a contingent claim does not see fit to avail himself of the privilege thus provided, there is nothing in the law which says that his claim is barred or prescribed, and that such creditor, under section 748 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at any time within two years from the time allowed other creditors to present their claims, may, if his claim becomes absolute within that period present it to the court for allowance. On the other hand counsel for appellee contends (1) that contingent claims like absolute claims are barred for non-presentation to the committee but (2) that the claim in question was in reality an absolute claim and therefore indisputably barred. The second contention takes logical precedence over the first and our view of its conclusiveness renders any consideration of the first point entirely unnecessary to a determination of the case. Bearing in mind that the deceased Hermenegilda Rogero, though surety for Lino Dayandante, was nevertheless bound jointly and severally with him in the obligation, the following provisions of law are here pertinent. Article 1822 of the Civil Code provides: By security a person binds himself to pay or perform for a third person in case the latter should fail to do so.

"If the surety binds himself jointly with the principal debtor, the provisions of section fourth, chapter third, title first, of this book shall be observed. Article 1144 of the same code provides: A creditor may sue any of the joint and several (solidarios) debtors or all of them simultaneously. The claims instituted against one shall not be an obstacle for those that may be later presented against the others, as long as it does not appear that the debt has been collected in full. Article 1830 of the same code provides: The surety can not be compelled to pay a creditor until application has been previously made of all the property of the debtor. Article 1831 provides: This application can not take place (1) . . . (2) If he has jointly bound himself with the debtor . . . . The foregoing articles of the Civil Code make it clear that Hermenegilda Rogero was liable absolutely and unconditionally for the full amount of the obligation without any right to demand the exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor previous to its payment. Her position so far as the creditor was concerned was exactly the same as if she had been the principal debtor. The absolute character of the claim and the duty of the committee to have allowed it is full as such against the estate of Hermenegilda Rogero had it been opportunely presented and found to be a valid claim is further established by section 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: When two or more persons are indebted on a joint contract, or upon a judgment founded on a joint contract, and either of them dies, his estate shall be liable therefor, and it shall be allowed by the committee as if the contract had been with him alone or the judgment against him alone. But the estate shall have the right to recover contribution from the other joint debtor. In the official Spanish translation of the Code of Civil Procedure, the sense of the English word "joint," as used in two places in the section above quoted, is rendered by the Spanish word "mancomunadamente." This is incorrect. The sense of the word "joint," as here used, would be more properly translated in Spanish by the word "solidaria," though even this word does not express the meaning of the English with entire fidelity. The section quoted, it should be explained, was originally taken by the author, or compiler, of our Code of Civil Procedure from the statutes of the State of Vermont; and the word "joint" is, therefore, here used in the sense which attaches to it in the common law. Now, in the common law system there is no conception of obligation corresponding to the divisible joint obligation contemplated in article 1138 of the Civil Code. This article declares in effect that, if not otherwise expressly determined, every obligation in which there is no conception of obligation

corresponding to the divisible joint obligation contemplated in article 1138 of the Civil Code. This article declares in effect that, if not otherwise expressly determined, every obligation in which there are numerous debtors we here ignore plurality of creditors shall be considered divided into as many parts as there are debtors, and each part shall be deemed to be the distinct obligation of one of the respective debtors. In other words, the obligation is apportionable among the debtors; and in case of the simple joint contract neither debtor can be required to satisfy more than his aliquot part. In the common law system every debtor in a joint obligation is liable in solidum for the whole; and the only legal peculiarity worthy of remark concerning the "joint" contract at common law is that the creditor is required to sue all the debtors at once. To avoid the inconvenience of this procedural requirement and to permit the creditor in a joint contract to do what the creditor in a solidary obligation can do under article 1144 of the Civil Code, it is not unusual for the parties to a common law contract to stipulate that the debtors shall be "jointly and severally" liable. The force of this expression is to enable the creditor to sue any one of the debtors or all together at pleasure. It will thus be seen that the purpose of section 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considered as a product of common law ideas, is not to convert an apportionable joint obligation into a solidary joint obligation for the idea of the benefit of division is totally foreign to the common law system but to permit the creditor to proceed at once separately against the estate of the deceased debtor, without attempting to draw the other debtors into intestate or testamentary proceedings. The joint contract of the common law is and always has been a solidary obligation so far as the extent of the debtor's liability is concerned. In Spanish law the comprehensive and generic term by which to indicate multiplicity of obligation, arising from plurality of debtors or creditors, is mancomunidad, which term includes (1) mancomunidad simple, ormancomunidad properly such, and (2) mancomunidad solidaria. In other words the Spanish system recognizes two species of multiple obligation, namely, the apportionable joint obligation and the solidary joint obligation. The solidary obligation is, therefore, merely a form of joint obligation. The idea of the benefit of division as a feature of the simple joint obligation appears to be a peculiar creation of Spanish jurisprudence. No such idea prevailed in the Roman law, and it is not recognized either in the French or in the Italian system. This conception is a badge of honor to Spanish legislation, honorably shared with the Spanish American, since French and Italian codes do not recognize the distinction of difference, just expounded, between the two sorts of multiple obligation. . . . (Giorgi, Theory of Obligations, Span. ed., vol. I, p. 77, note.) Considered with reference to comparative jurisprudence, liability in solidum appears to be the normal characteristic of the multiple obligation, while the benefit of division in the Spanish system is an illustration of the abnormal, evidently resulting from the operation of a positive rule created by the lawgiver. This exceptional feature of the simple joint obligation in Spanish law dates from an early period; and the rule in question is expressed with simplicity and precision in a passage transcribed into the Novisima Recopilacion as follows: If two persons bind themselves by contract, simply and not otherwise, to do or accomplish something, it is thereby to be understood that each is bound for one-half, unless it is specified in

the contract that each is bound in solidum, or it is agreed among themselves that they shall be bound in some other manner, and this notwithstanding any customary law to the contrary; . . . (Law X, tit. I, book X, Novisima Recopilacion, copied from law promulgated at Madrid in 1488 by Henry IV.) The foregoing exposition of the conflict between the juridical conceptions of liability incident to the multiple obligation, as embodied respectively in the common law system and the Spanish Civil Code, prepares us for a few words of comment upon the problem of translating the terms which we have been considering from English into Spanish or from Spanish into English. The Spanish expression to be chosen as the equivalent of the English word "joint" must, of course, depend upon the idea to be conveyed; and it must be remembered that the matter to be translated may be an enunciation either of a common law conception or of a civil law idea. In Sharruf vs. Tayabas Land Co. and Ginainati (37 Phil. Rep., 655), a judge of one of the Courts of First Instance in these Islands rendered judgment in English declaring the defendants to be "jointly" liable. It was held that he meant "jointly" in the sense of "mancomunadamente," because the obligation upon which the judgment was based was apportionable under article 1138 of the Civil Code. This mode of translation does not, however, hold good where the word to be translated has reference to a multiple common law obligation, as in article 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here it is necessary to render the word "joint" by the Spanish word "solidaria." In translating the Spanish word "mancomunada" into English a similar difficulty is presented. In the Philippine Islands at least we must probably continue to tolerate the use of the English word "joint" as an approximate English equivalent, ambiguous as it may be to a reader indoctrinated with the ideas of the common law. The Latin phrasepro rata is a make shift, the use of which is not to be commended. The Spanish word "solidary," though it is not inaccurate here to use the compound expression "joint obligation," as conveying the full juridical sense of "obligacion mancomunada" and "obligacion solidaria," respectively. From what has been said it is clear that Hermenegilda Rogero, and her estate after her death, was liable absolutely for the whole obligation, under section 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and if the claim had been duly presented to the committee for allowance it should have been allowed, just as if the contact had been with her alone. It is thus apparent that by the express and incontrovertible provisions both of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, this claim was an absolute claim. Applying section 695 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court has frequently decided that such claims are barred if not presented to the committee in time (In re estate of Garcia Pascual, 11 Phil. Rep., 34; Ortiga Bros. & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico, 18 Phil. Rep., 345, 351; Santos vs.Manarang, 27 Phil. Rep., 209, 213); and we are of the opinion that, for this reason, the claim was properly rejected by Judge Jenkins. There is no force, in our judgment, in the contention that the pendency of the suit instituted by the deceased for the cancellation of the document in which the obligation in question was recorded was a bar to the presentation of the claim against the estate. The fact that the lower court had declared the document void was not conclusive, as its judgment was not final, and even assuming that if the claim had been presented to the committee for allowance, it would have been rejected and that the decision of the committee would have been sustained by the

Court of First Instance, the rights of the creditor could have been protected by an appeal from that decision. Appellant apparently takes the position that had his claim been filed during the pendency of the cancellation suit, it would have been met with the plea of another suit pending and that this plea would have been successful. This view of the law is contrary to the doctrine of the decision in the case of Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation vs. Aldecoa & Co. ([1915], 30 Phil. Rep., 255.) Furthermore, even had Jaucian, in his appeal from the decision in the cancellation suit, endeavored to obtain judgment on his crosscomplaint, the death of the debtor would probably have required the discontinuance of the action presented by the cross-complaint or counterclaim, under section 703. As already observed the case is such as not to require the court to apply sections 746-749, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor to determine the conditions under which contingent claims are barred. But a few words of comment may be added to show further that the solidary obligation upon which this proceeding is based is not a contingent claim, such as is contemplated in those sections. The only concrete illustration of a contingent claim given is section 746 is the case where a person is liable as surety for the deceased, that is, where the principal debtor is dead. This is a very different situation from that presented in the concrete case now before us, where the surety is the person who is dead. In the illustration put in section 746 where the principal debtor is dead and the surety is the party preferring the claim against the estate of the deceased it is obvious that the surety has no claim against the estate of the principal debtor, unless he himself satisfies the obligation in whole or in part upon which both are bound. It is at this moment, and not before, that the obligation of the principal to indemnify the surety arises (art. 1838, Civil Code); and by virtue of such payment the surety is subrogated in all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor (art. 1839, same code). Another simple illustration of a contingent liability is found in the case of the indorser of a contingent liability is found in the case of the indorser of a negotiable instrument, who is not liable until his liability is fixed by dishonor and notice, or protest an notice, in conformity with the requirements of law. Until this event happens there is a mere possibility of a liability is fixed by dishonor and notice, or protest and notice, in conformity with the requirements of law. Until this event happens there is a mere possibility of a liability, which is fact may never become fixed at all. The claims of all persons who assume the responsibility of a liability, which in fact may never become fixed at all. The claims of all persons who assume the responsibility of mere guarantors in as against their principles of the same contingent character. It is possible that "contingency," in the cases contemplated in section 746, may depend upon other facts than those which relate to the creation or inception of liability. It may be, for instance, that the circumstance that a liability is subsidiary, and the execution has to be postponed after judgment is obtained until the exhaustion of the assets of the person or entity primarily liable, makes a claim contingent within the meaning of said section; but upon this point it is unnecessary to express an opinion. It is enough to say that where, as in the case now before us, liability extends unconditionally to the entire amount stated in the obligation, or, in other words, where the debtor is liable in solidum and without postponement of execution, the liability is not contingent but absolute.

For the reasons stated, the decision of the trial court denying appellant's petition and his motion for a new trial was correct and must be affirmed. No costs will be allowed on this appeal. So ordered. G.R. No. L-7185 August 31, 1955

REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC., respondents. Sixto de la Costa and Jose M. Garcia for petitioner. Juan T. Chuidian for respondents. REYES, A., J.: On June 17, 1948, Delfin Dominguez signed a contract with Realty Investments, Inc., to purchase a registered lot belonging to the latter, making a down payment of P39.98 and promising to pay the balance of the stipulated price in 119 monthly installments. Some three months thereafter, to finance the improvement of a house Dominguez had built on the lot of Rehabilitation Finance Corporationhereafter called the RFCagreed to loan him P10,000 on the security of a mortgage upon said house and lot, and, at his instance, wrote Realty Investments a letter, dated September 17, 1948, requesting that the necessary documents for the transfer of title of the vendee be executed so that the same could be registered together with mortgage, this with the assurance that as soon as title to the lot had been issued in the name of Dominguez and the mortgage in favor of the RFC registered as first lien on the lot and the building thereon, the RFC would pay Realty Investments "the balance of the purchase price of the lot in the amount of P3,086.98." Complying with RFC's request and relying on its assurance of payment, Realty Investments, on the 20th of that same month, deeded over the lot to Dominguez "free of all liens and incumbrances" and thereafter the mortgage deed, which Dominguez had executed in favor of RFC three days before, was recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila as first lien on the lot and the building thereon. It would appear that once the mortgage was registered, the RFC let Dominguez have P6,500 out of the proceeds of his loan, but that the remainder of the loan was never released because Dominguez defaulted in the payment of the amortizations due on the amount he had already received, and as a consequence the RFC foreclosed the mortgage, bought the mortgaged property in the foreclosure sale, and obtained title thereto upon failure of the mortgagor to exercise his right of redemption. Required to make good its promise to pay Realty Investments the balance of the purchase price of the lot, the RFC refused, and so Realty Investments commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of the said balance from either Delfin Dominguez or the RFC. The trial court allowed recovery from Dominguez, but absolved the RFC from the complaint. But on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed that verdict, declared the judgment against Dominguez void for having been rendered after his exclusion from the case, and sentenced the RFC to pay plaintiff the amount claimed together with interests and costs. From this judgment the RFC has appealed to this Court. We find no merit in the appeal. While the amount sought to be recovered by plaintiff was originally owing from Dominguez, being the balance of the purchase price of the lot he had agreed to buy, the obligation of paying it to plaintiff has already been assumed by the RFC with no other condition than that title to the lot be first conveyed to Dominguez and RFC's mortgage lien thereon registered, and that condition has already been fulfilled. It is, however, contended for the RFC that its obligation to pay "has been modified, if not extinguished" by plaintiff's letter of September 20, 1948, which reads as follows:

September 20, 1948 The R. F. C. Manila SIRS: In connection with your guarantee to pay us the balance of P3,086.98 of the account of Mr. Delfin Dominguez for the purchase of lot No. 15, block 7 of our Riverside Subdivision, which lot has been conveyed to him on the strength of your guaranty to us the said balance, we want to inform you that, at the request of Mr. Dominguez, we are agreeable to have that amount paid us at the second release of proceeds of his loan, which he informs us will be on or about October 15, 1948. Yours truly, REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC. C. M. HONSKINS & CO., INC. Managing Agents By: (Sgd.) A. B. Aquino President Passing upon the above contention, the Court of Appeals says: "As narrated in the statement of the case, both Dominguez and the appellee kept appellant ignorant on the terms and conditions of their agreement concerning the loan of P10,000 and of the manner that sum was to be released, and in such circumstances plaintiff's letter of September 20, 1948, cannot be construed in the manner contended by appellee and sustained by the court, for plaintiff merely said in substance and effect that it was agreeable to have the balance of P3,086.98 of the account of Delfin Dominguez paid to it 'at the second release of proceeds of his loan, which he (Dominguez) informs us will be on or about October 15, 1948.' Defendant-appellee should know that it would be absurd for the plaintiff to waive appellee's guaranty contained in its letter of September 17, 1948, wherein Governor E. Ealdama bound the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the lot in question after title thereof was transferred in the name of Dominguez free from any incumbrance. If the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was not to make any further release of funds on the loan, or if such release was to be subject to future developments, it was the duty of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to answer the latter's letter of September 20, 1948, and to inform appellant of the terms and conditions of the loan, but the officers of the appellee failed to do this. For this reason, appellee's contention in this respect is most unfair and cannot be upheld by the courts of justice. It was the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation that induced plaintiff to issue title to the lot free from all encumbrances to Dominguez on its guaranty, and it cannot now without any fault of the plaintiff keep the lot in question and Dominguez' building without paying anything to the plaintiff. Under the circumstance of the case, appellant was not under any obligation of assuming Dominguez' right of redemption of the property foreclosed just to save said lot, payment for which was guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation." We are in accord with the above pronouncement. Plaintiff was induced to part with his title to a piece of real property upon RFC's assurance that it would itself pay the balance of the purchase price due from the purchaser after its mortgage lien thereon had been registered. Lulled by that assurance, plaintiff thereafter looked to the RFC, instead of the purchase, for payment. It is true that plaintiff later expressed willingness to have the payment made at a later date, whenso it was informed by the buyer"the second release of proceeds of his loan" would take place. But it is evident that this period of grace was granted by plaintiff in the belief that the information furnished by the buyer was true, and, as found by the Court of Appeals (and this finding is conclusive upon this Court), RFC never made plaintiff know that said information was not

correct. In those circumstances, we do not think it fair to construe plaintiff's letter to be anything more than a mere assent to a deferment of payment, and such assent should not be taken as willingness on its part to have the payment made only if and when there was to be second release of proceeds of the loan. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the creditor, already assured of payment by the RFC itself, would want to create uncertainty by making such payment dependent upon a contingency. In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the RFC. [G.R. No. 134100. September 29, 2000] PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact RAMON G. JARING,respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: The question for decision in this case is whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt which is owed by the conjugal partnership of gains, or whether such claim must be filed in proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. We reverse. The facts are as follows: Respondent Romeo Jaring[1] was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Barito, Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. The lease was for a period of five years ending on September 12, 1990. On June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the remaining period of his lease, to the spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. The stipulated amount of rent was P485,600.00, payable in two installments of P300,000.00 and P185,600.00, with the second installment falling due on June 30, 1989. Each of the four sublessees signed the contract. The first installment was duly paid, but of the second installment, the sublessees only satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid balance of P50,600.00. Despite due demand, the sublessees failed to comply with their obligation, so that, on October 13, 1989, private respondent sued the Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of the said amount before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan. In the alternative, he prayed for the rescission of the sublease contract should the defendants fail to pay the balance. Petitioner Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband, Placido Alipio, had passed away on December 1, 1988. [2] She based her action on Rule 3, 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court which then provided that "when the action is for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules." This provision has been amended so that now Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry

of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. The trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that since petitioner was herself a party to the sublease contract, she could be independently impleaded in the suit together with the Manuel spouses and that the death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case.[3] The Manuel spouses failed to file their answer. For this reason, they were declared in default. On February 26, 1991, the lower court rendered judgment after trial, ordering petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private respondent the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 plus attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and the costs of the suit. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss. In its decision[4] rendered on July 10, 1997, the appellate court dismissed her appeal. It held: The rule that an action for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon must be dismissed when the defendant dies before final judgment in the regional trial court, does not apply where there are other defendants against whom the action should be maintained. This is the teaching of Climaco v. Siy Uy, wherein the Supreme Court held: Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that Climaco had a cause of action against the persons named as defendants therein. It was, however, a cause of action for the recovery of damages, that is, a sum of money, and the corresponding action is, unfortunately, one that does not survive upon the death of the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. xxxxxxxxx However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant, Manuel Co was also named defendant in the complaint. Obviously, therefore, the order appealed from is erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case against Co.(Underlining added) Moreover, it is noted that all the defendants, including the deceased, were signatories to the contract of sub-lease. The remaining defendants cannot avoid the action by claiming that the death of one of the parties to the contract has totally extinguished their obligation as held in Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David: We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well settled jurisprudence, when the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may bring his action in toto against any of the debtors obligated in solidum. Thus, if husband and wife bound themselves jointly and severally, in case of his death, her liability is independent of and separate from her husband's; she may be sued for the whole debt and it would be error to hold that the claim against her as well as the claim against her husband should be made in the decedent's estate. (Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili, 90 Phil. 97).[5] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on June 4, 1998.[6] Hence this petition based on the following assignment of errors:

A. The respondent court committed reversible error in applying Climaco v. Siy Uy, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was not seeking the dismissal of the case against remaining defendants but only with respect to the claim for payment against her and her husband which should be prosecuted as a money claim. B. The respondent court committed reversible error in applying Imperial Insurance Inc. v. David, which is not applicable because the spouses in this case did not bind themselves jointly and severally in favor of respondent Jaring. The petition is meritorious. We hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent. First. Petitioner's husband died on December 1, 1988, more than ten months before private respondent filed the collection suit in the trial court on October 13, 1989. This case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, 21 which deals with dismissals of collection suits because of the death of the defendant during the pendency of the case and the subsequent procedure to be undertaken by the plaintiff, i.e., the filing of claim in the proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate. As already noted, Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now provides that the case will be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein will then be enforced in the manner especially provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. The issue to be resolved is whether private respondent can, in the first place, file this case against petitioner. Petitioner and her late husband, together with the Manuel spouses, signed the sublease contract binding themselves to pay the amount of stipulated rent. Under the law, the Alipios' obligation (and also that of the Manuels) is one which is chargeable against their conjugal partnership. Under Art. 161(1) of the Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the partnership.[8] When petitioner's husband died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved[9] and debts chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in accordance with Rule 73, 2 which states: Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. As held in Calma v. Taedo,[10] after the death of either of the spouses, no complaint for the collection of indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership can be brought against the surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property. The reason for this is that upon the death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the

surviving spouse ceases and is passed to the administrator appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the settlement of estate proceedings. [11] Indeed, the surviving spouse is not even a de facto administrator such that conveyances made by him of any property belonging to the partnership prior to the liquidation of the mass of conjugal partnership property is void.[12] The ruling in Calma v. Taedo was reaffirmed in the recent case of Ventura v. Militante.[13] In that case, the surviving wife was sued in an amended complaint for a sum of money based on an obligation allegedly contracted by her and her late husband. The defendant, who had earlier moved to dismiss the case, opposed the admission of the amended complaint on the ground that the death of her husband terminated their conjugal partnership and that the plaintiff's claim, which was chargeable against the partnership, should be made in the proceedings for the settlement of his estate. The trial court nevertheless admitted the complaint and ruled, as the Court of Appeals did in this case, that since the defendant was also a party to the obligation, the death of her husband did not preclude the plaintiff from filing an ordinary collection suit against her. On appeal, the Court reversed, holding that as correctly argued by petitioner, the conjugal partnership terminates upon the death of either spouse. . . . Where a complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal [partnership], any judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. In many cases as in the instant one, even after the death of one of the spouses, there is no liquidation of the conjugal partnership. This does not mean, however, that the conjugal partnership continues. And private respondent cannot be said to have no remedy. Under Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court, he may apply in court for letters of administration in his capacity as a principal creditor of the deceased . . . if after thirty (30) days from his death, petitioner failed to apply for administration or request that administration be granted to some other person.[14] The cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals in support of its ruling, namely, Climaco v. Siy Uy[15] and Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. David,[16] are based on different sets of facts. In Climaco, the defendants, Carlos Siy Uy and Manuel Co, were sued for damages for malicious prosecution. Thus, apart from the fact the claim was not against any conjugal partnership, it was one which does not survive the death of defendant Uy, which merely resulted in the dismissal of the case as to him but not as to the remaining defendant Manuel Co. With regard to the case of Imperial, the spouses therein jointly and severally executed an indemnity agreement which became the basis of a collection suit filed against the wife after her husband had died. For this reason, the Court ruled that since the spouses' liability was solidary, the surviving spouse could be independently sued in an ordinary action for the enforcement of the entire obligation. It must be noted that for marriages governed by the rules of conjugal partnership of gains, an obligation entered into by the husband and wife is chargeable against their conjugal partnership and it is the partnership which is primarily bound for its repayment. [17] Thus, when the spouses are sued for the enforcement of an obligation entered into by them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept of joint or solidary liability, as between them, does not apply. But even assuming the contrary to be true, the nature of the

obligation involved in this case, as will be discussed later, is not solidary but rather merely joint, making Imperial still inapplicable to this case. From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent cannot maintain the present suit against petitioner. Rather, his remedy is to file a claim against the Alipios in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of petitioner's husband or, if none has been commenced, he can file a petition either for the issuance of letters of administration[18] or for the allowance of will,[19]depending on whether petitioner's husband died intestate or testate. Private respondent cannot short-circuit this procedure by lumping his claim against the Alipios with those against the Manuels considering that, aside from petitioner's lack of authority to represent their conjugal estate, the inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is necessary before any claim chargeable against it can be paid. Needless to say, such power exclusively pertains to the court having jurisdiction over the settlement of the decedent's estate and not to any other court. Second. The trial court ordered petitioner and the Manuel spouses to pay private respondent the unpaid balance of the agreed rent in the amount of P50,600.00 without specifying whether the amount is to be paid by them jointly or solidarily. In connection with this, Art. 1207 of the Civil Code provides: The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so estates, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Indeed, if from the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be only joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one another.[20] Private respondent does not cite any provision of law which provides that when there are two or more lessees, or in this case, sublessees, the latter's obligation to pay the rent is solidary. To be sure, should the lessees or sublessees refuse to vacate the leased property after the expiration of the lease period and despite due demands by the lessor, they can be held jointly and severally liable to pay for the use of the property. The basis of their solidary liability is not the contract of lease or sublease but the fact that they have become joint tortfeasors. [21] In the case at bar, there is no allegation that the sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the expiration of the term of the sublease. Indeed, the unpaid balance sought to be collected by private respondent in his collection suit became due on June 30, 1989, long before the sublease expired on September 12, 1990. Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature of lease that when there are more than two lessees or sublessees their liability is solidary. On the other hand, the pertinent portion of the contract involved in this case reads:[22] 2. That the total lease rental for the sub-leased fishpond for the entire period of three (3) years and two (2) months is FOUR HUNDRED EIGHT-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED (P485,600.00) PESOS, including all the improvements, prawns, milkfishes, crabs and related species thereon as well all fishing equipment, paraphernalia and accessories. The said amount shall be paid to the Sub-Lessor by the SubLessees in the following manner, to wit:

A. Three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos upon signing this contract; and B. One Hundred Eight-Five Thousand Six-Hundred (P185,6000.00) Pesos to be paid on June 30, 1989. Clearly, the liability of the sublessees is merely joint. Since the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable against their respective conjugal partnerships, the unpaid balance ofP50,600.00 should be divided into two so that each couple is liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Bienvenido Manuel and Remedios Manuel are ordered to pay the amount of P25,300.00, the attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and the costs of the suit. The complaint against petitioner is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a claim by private respondent in the proceedings for the settlement of estate of Placido Alipio for the collection of the share of the Alipio spouses in the unpaid balance of the rent in the amount of P25,300.00.