Jaucian vs. Querol

Creditor (D) vs. Estate of "solidary" debtor (P)
GR L-11307, October 5, 1918	[T]

Summary: A surety signed a debt instrument binding herself "jointly and severally" with the debtor. The surety sued for cancellation of the instrument, but it was ruled by the court as valid. When the surety died, the creditor filed a claim with the estate, but was refused because the creditor did not exhaust his claim against the principal debtor.

Rule of Law: 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.

Facts: Lino Dayandante and Hermenegilda Rogero (P) acknowledged themselves to be indebted to Roman Jaucian (D) "jointly and severally".

Rogero (P) signed the document in the capacity of surety for Dayandante, but the instrument showed that both debtors bound themselves jointly and severally to the creditor. There was nothing in the terms of the obligation itself to show that the relation between the two debtors was that of principal and surety.

Rogero (P) sued Jaucian (D) for fraud. But in his answer, Jaucian (D) asked for judgment against the Rogero (P) for the amount due upon the obligation. The court ruled in favor of Jaucian (D).

While the case was pending, Rogero (P) died and her estate was substituted as plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that the document was valid and Rogero (P) was a surety of the debtor.

Jaucian (D) filed a claim against the estate of Rogero (P). Francisco Querol (P), the administrator of Rogero's (P) estate, demanded a judgment from the court of his claim against Dayandante that he is indeed insolvent and that Jaucian (D) exhausted all means to collect from the principal debtor.

Issues: Is the surety solidary liable with the principal debtor? May the creditor sue a "surety" without exhausting all means against the primary debtor?

Ruling: Yes. Rogero (P), though a surety for Dayandante, was nevertheless bound jointly and severally with him in the obligation.

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.

Article 1144 of the Civil 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.

Rogero (P) was solidary liable for the full amount of the obligation without any right to demand the exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor. Her position so far as the creditor was concerned was exactly the same as if she had been the principal debtor.
__________
* Keyword : solidary obligation