You are on page 1of 2

[No.34642.

September24,1931]
FABIOLA SEVERINO, accompanied by her husband RICARDO VERGARA, plaintiffs and
appellees,vs.GUILLERMOSEVERINOETAL.,defendants.ENRIQUEECHAUS,appellant.
CONTRACT; CONSIDERATION ; SURETY OR GUARANTOR.It is not necessary that a surety or
guarantor should participate in the benefit which constitutes the consideration as between the principal
parties to the contract.
APPEALfromajudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo.Barrios,J.
Thefactsarestatedintheopinionofthecourt.
186
186 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Severino and Vergara vs. Severino
R.Nepomucenoforappellant.
JacintoE.Evidenteforappellees.
STREET,J.:
ThisactionwasinstitutedintheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheProvinceofIloilobyFabiolaSeverino,with
whom is joined her husband Ricardo Vergara, for the purpose of recovering the sum of P20,000 from
GuillermoSeverinoandEnriqueEchaus,thelatterinthecharacterofguarantorfortheformer.Upon
hearingthecausethetrialcourtgavejudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffstorecoverthesumofP20,000with
lawfulinterestfromNovember15,1929,thedateofthefilingofthecomplaint,withcosts.Butitwas
declaredthatexecutionofthisjudgmentshouldissuefirstagainstthepropertyofGuillermoSeverino,and
ifnopropertyshouldbefoundbelongingtosaiddefendantsufficienttosatisfythejudgmentinwholeorin
part,executionfortheremaindershouldbeissuedagainstthepropertyofEnriqueEchausasguarantor.
FromthisjudgmentthedefendantEchausappealed,buthisprincipal,GuillermoSeverino,didnot.
TheplaintiffFabiolaSeverinoistherecognizednaturaldaughterofMelecioSeverino,deceased,former
resident of Occidental Negros. Upon the death of Melecio Severino a number of years ago, he left
considerablepropertyandlitigationensuedbetweenhiswidow,FelicitasVillanueva,andFabiolaSeverino,
ontheonepart,andotherheirsofthedeceasedontheotherpart.Inordertomakeanendofthislitigation
acompromisewaseffectedbywhichGuillermoSeverino,asonofMelecioSeverino,tookovertheproperty
pertainingtotheestateofhisfatheratthesametimeagreeingtopayP100,000toFelicitasVillanuevaand
FabiolaSeverino.Thissumofmoneywasmadepayable,first,P40,000incashupontheexecutionofthe
documentofcompromise,andthebalanceinthreeseveralpaymentsofP20,000attheendofoneyear,two
years,andthreeyearsrespectively.TothiscontracttheappellantEnrique
187
VOL. 56, SEPTEMBER 24, 1931 187
Severino and Vergara vs. Severino
Echausaffixedhisnameasguarantor.ThefirstpaymentofP40,000wasmadeonJuly11,1924,thedate
whenthecontractofcompromisewasexecuted;andofthisamounttheplaintiffFabiolaSeverinoreceived
thesumofP10,000.OftheremainingP60,000,allasyetunpaid,FabiolaSeverinoisentitledtothesumof
P20,000.
ItappearsthatatthetimethecompromiseagreementabovementionedwasexecutedFabiolaSeverinohad
notyetbeenjudiciallyrecognizedasthenaturaldaughterofMelecioSeverino,anditwasstipulatedthat
thelastP20,000correspondingtoFabiolaandthelastP5,000correspondingtoFelicitasVillanuevashould
beretainedondeposituntilthedefinitestatusofFabiolaSeverinoasnaturaldaughterofMelecioSeverino
should be established. Thejudicial decree to this effect was entered in the Court of First Instance of
OccidentalNegrosonJune16,1925,andasthemoneywhichwascontemplatedtobeheldinsuspensehas
never in fact been paid to the parties entitled thereto, it results that the point respecting the deposit
referredtohasceasedtobeofmoment.
The proof shows that the money claimed in this action has never been paid and is still owing to the
plaintiff;andtheonlydefenseworthnotinginthisdecisionistheassertiononthepartofEnriqueEchaus
thathereceivednothingforaffixinghissignatureasguarantortothecontractwhichisthesubjectofsuit
andthatineffectthecontractwaslackinginconsiderationastohim.
Thepointisnotwelltaken.Aguarantororsuretyisboundbythesameconsiderationthatmakesthe
contracteffectivebetweentheprincipalpartiesthereto.(Pylevs.Johnson,9Phil.,249.)Thecompromise
anddismissalofalawsuitisrecognizedinlawasavaluableconsideration;andthedismissaloftheaction
which Felicitas Villanueva and Fabiola Severino had instituted against Guillermo Severino was an
adequateconsiderationtosupportthepromiseonthepartofGuillermoSeverinotopaythesumsof
188
188 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cario vs. Jamoralne
moneystipulatedinthecontractwhichisthesubjectofthisaction.ThepromiseoftheappellantEchausas
guarantoristhereforebinding.Itisnevernecessarythataguarantororsuretyshouldreceiveanypartof
thebenefit,ifsuchtherebe,accruingtohisprincipal.Butthetrueconsiderationofthiscontractwasthe
detrimentsuffered.bytheplaintiffsintheformeractionindismissingthatproceeding,anditisimmaterial
thatnobenefitmayhaveaccruedeithertotheprincipalorhisguarantor.
Thejudgmentappealedfromisinallrespectscorrect,andthesamewillbeaffirmed,withcostsagainstthe
appellant.Soordered.
Avancea, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial,
JJ., concur.
Judgmentaffirmed.

You might also like