INTESTATE

ESTATE OF VICTOR SEVILLA. SIMEON SADAYA, petitioner, v. FRANCISCO SEVILLA, respondent

J. Sanchez
27 April 1967
G.R. No. L-17845
Doctrine

Summary

Facts

Ratio/Issues

Where a solidary accommodation maker paid to the bank the balance due on a promissory note, he may seek contribution from the other
solidary accommodation maker, in the absence of a contrary agreement between them. This right springs from an implied promise between
the accommodation makers to share equally the burdens resulting from their execution of the note. They are joint guarantors of the principal
debtors. HOWEVER, since the NIL does not define the right of an accommodation maker, to seek reimbursement from another
accommodation maker, this deficiency should be supplied by article 2073 of the New Civil Code, which deals with a situation where one
surety has paid the debt and is seeking contribution from his co-sureties.

A solidary accommodation maker, who paid the balance due on a promissory note, is not entitled to demand contribution from his coaccommodation maker where he made the payment voluntarily and without any judicial demand and there is no proof that the principal
debtor is insolvent.
Sevilla, Varona & Sadaya executed a PN for 15K in favor of BPI. Sevilla & Sadaya signed as co-makers. Since the balance was left unpaid, BPI
collected from Sadaya. Despite repeated demands, Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya. When Sevilla died, Sadaya filed a creditors claim
against his estate. TC admitted the claim, while CA disallowed. SC held that the claim should not be allowed. Sadaya should instead seek
reimbursement from Varona.
28 March 1949 Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona, & Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly & severally, a promissory note for P15,000 with
interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand in favor of BPI, or its order.
o
Full amount (15K) received by Varona alone
o
Sevilla & Sadaya signed the PN as co-makers only as a favor to Varona

As of 15 June 1950, outstanding balance at P4,859. No payment was thereafter made.

6 Oct 1952 Bank collected from Sadaya the foregoing balance + interest (P5,746.12)
o
Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands.

Sevilla died. Intestate estate proceedings were started in CFI. Francisco Sevilla was named administrator.
o
Sadaya filed a creditors claim for P5,746.12 + attorneys fees (P1,500).
o
Administrator resisted the claim Victor Sevilla did not receive any amount as consideration for the PN but signed it only as
surety for Oscar Varona

TC: admitted claim of Sandaya, directed administrator to pay from the estate. MR overruled.

CA: set aside TC order, disapproved & disallowed claim against the intestate estate.

Petition for certiorari before SC

W/N the claim against the intestate estate should be allowed NO, it is Varona who has the obligation to reimburse Sadaya.

As accommodation makers of the 15K PN, Sevilla and Sadayas individual obligation is no different from (no greater or less than) that
contracted by Varona. While they did not receive value on the PN, they executed the same with, and for the purpose of lending their
names to Oscar Varona, their liability to the bank upon the explicit terms of the PN is joint & several.

Bank could have pursued its right to collect the unpaid balance against either Sevilla or Sadaya. Fact is, Sadaya paid that balance.

Sadaya could have sought reimbursement of the total amount paid from Oscar Varona, since the latter received full value of the PN.

As between Varona & Sadaya, there is an implied contract of indemnity; and Varona is bound by the obligation to reimburse Sadaya.

Amongst the three, the obligation of Varona and Sevilla to Sadaya who paid cannot be joint & several.
o
Had payment been made by Varona instead of Sadaya, Varona could not have had reason to seek reimbursement from either
Sevilla or Sadaya, or both. After all, proceeds of the loan went to Varona and the other two received nothing therefrom.

A solidary accommodation maker, who made payment, has the right to contribution, from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence
of agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by law.
o
This right springs from an implied promise between the accommodation makers to share equally the burdens that may ensue
from their having consented to stamp their signatures on the PN.
o
For having lent their signatures to the principal debtor, they clearly placed themselves in the category of mere joint
guarantors of the former.

Nothing extant in the NIL would define the right of one accommodation maker to seek reimbursement from another. Thus, we must go
to the Civil Code.
o
Because Sevilla & Sadaya, in themselves, are but coguarantors of Varona, their case comes within the ambit of Article 2073 of
the Civil Code.1
o
Mr. Justice Street: [T]hat article deals with the situation which arises when one surety has paid the debt to the creditor and is
seeking contribution from his cosureties."

Rules:
1. A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand from the principal debtor reimbursement
for the amount that he paid to the payee; (No judicial demand made on Sandaya to pay the obligation)
2. A joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his coaccommodation maker without first directing his action against the principal debtor provided that (a) he made the payment by
virtue of a judicial demand, or (b) a principal debtor is insolvent. (Varona is not insolvent)

CA found that Sadaya's payment to the bank "was made voluntarily and without any judicial demand," and that "there is an absolute
absence of evidence showing that Varona is insolvent". This combination of fact and lack of fact epitomizes the fatal distance between
payment by Sadaya and Sadaya's right to demand of Sevilla "the share which is proportionately owing from him."

Held
Judgment of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.
Prepared by: Nicole [Nego|Jacinto]

ART. 2073. When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the
others the share which is proportionally owing from him.
If any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others, including the payer, in the same proportion.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable, unless the payment has been made in virtue of a judicial demand or unless the principal debtor is insolvent.