Title
Cacho vs. Valles
Case
G.R. No. 19493
Decision Date
Aug 27, 1923
A guarantor contested liability for a debt, arguing for proportional responsibility among cosureties; the Supreme Court ruled sureties are liable only for their share unless solidary liability is explicitly stated.
A

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7961)

Facts:

  • Transaction and Parties
    • On October 29, 1920, the National Sporting Club of Manila issued a promissory note payable in four months to Jose Ma. Cacho, or order, for the amount of P9,360, representing value received for commercial purposes.
    • Below the signature of the National Sporting Club on the note, five individuals—J. A. Valles, J. L. Mateu, G. J. Heffting, Ed. Chesley, and Baldomero Roxas—signed a personal guaranty stating, “We guarantee this obligation.”
  • Default and Legal Proceedings
    • Upon maturity, the National Sporting Club failed to pay the promissory note.
    • Jose Ma. Cacho filed an action against the National Sporting Club and the five guarantors for payment of the note.
    • The National Sporting Club and four guarantors did not appear or defend; only Baldomero Roxas responded. Roxas denied the complaint generally and asserted:
      • The right to division among cosureties, meaning that each guarantor should only be liable for their proportional share.
      • Before requiring him to pay, the property of the National Sporting Club should be exhausted.
  • Trial Court Decisions
    • On May 9, 1922, judgment was entered against the National Sporting Club by default and also against all five guarantors, holding each liable for their pro rata share of the total debt with interest, contingent on the Club’s insolvency or non-payment.
    • On June 20, 1922, the trial court modified its decision with respect to the guarantors, ruling that if any surety proved insolvent, his share would fall proportionally on the other solvent sureties.
    • Baldomero Roxas appealed the modification of June 20, 1922, contending that the court erred because the guaranty did not provide for solidary liability and thus he should only be liable for his proportional share.

Issues:

  • Whether several simple sureties who signed a personal guaranty without expressly stipulating solidary liability can be held liable beyond their aliquot shares if one or more of the sureties is insolvent.
  • Whether the trial court correctly modified its judgment to hold solvent sureties liable for the insolvent cosurety’s portion of the debt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.