Facts:

The case involves Jose M.A. Arroyo, who serves as the guardian of Tito Jocsing, an individual deemed an imbecile. The events leading to this case began when the former guardian, Florentino Hilario Jungsay, absconded with the funds belonging to Tito Jocsing. Following this, Arroyo was appointed by the court as the new guardian. The case was brought before the court to address the financial mismanagement by Jungsay and his bondsmen, who were the defendants in this matter. The lower court ruled in favor of Arroyo, ordering the defendants to pay the sum of P 6,000, along with interest and costs. The bondsmen, in their appeal, contended that they should be credited with P 4,400, which they claimed was the value of certain property that had been attached as belonging to the absconding guardian. However, this property was in the possession of third parties who claimed ownership. The bondsmen based their argument on Article 1834 of the Civil Code, which allows sur...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellee: Jose M.A. Arroyo, guardian of Tito Jocsing, an imbecile.
   • Defendants and Appellants: Florentino Hilario Jungsay (absconding guardian) and his bondsmen.

2. Background:

   • Tito Jocsing, an imbecile, was under the guardianship of Florentino Hilario Jungsay.
   • Jungsay absconded with the funds of his ward, leading to his removal as guardian.
   • Jose M.A. Arroyo was appointed as the new guardian.

3. Legal Action:

   • Arroyo filed a case against Jungsay and his bondsmen to recover the misappropriated funds.
   • The trial court ruled in favor of Arroyo, ordering the defendants to pay P6,000, plus interest and costs.

4. Appeal:

   • The bondsmen appealed, arguing they should be credited with P4,400, the alleged value of certain properties attached as belonging to Jungsay.
   • These properties were in the possession of third parties claiming ownership.

Issue:

1. Whether the bondsmen (sureties) are entitled to a credit of P4,400 based on the alleged value of properties attached as belonging to Jungsay.
2. Whether the sureties complied with the requirements of Article 1832 of the Civil Code to claim the benefit of discussion (excussion).

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that:

1. The sureties failed to meet the requirements of Article 1832 of the Civil Code.
2. The properties they pointed out were insufficient, not salable, and encumbered by third-party claims, making them unsuitable for satisfying the debt.
3. The proper procedure under Article 1834 of the Civil Code and Section 577 of the Code of Civil Procedure was followed in the case.

Ratio:

1. Benefit of Discussion (Excussion):

   • Under Article 1832 of the Civil Code, a surety must point out property of the principal debtor that is realizable and sufficient to cover the debt.
   • The sureties in this case failed to meet this requirement, as the properties they designated were encumbered and in the possession of third parties claiming ownership.

2. Legal Procedure:

   • When a guardian absconds, the proper method to determine liability and bind the sureties is through a civil action where the sureties are made parties and given an opportunity to be heard.
   • This procedure was followed in the instant case, ensuring due process.

3. Judgment Affirmed:

   • The judgment of the lower court was in accordance with the law, and the sureties were held liable for the debt.