Facts:

• The case involves a bond for the dissolution of an attachment.
• On April 5, 1906, the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu issued a writ of attachment against the goods of Santiago Roldan Sy Cangjo in a civil action filed by Lucio Herrera.
• On April 25, 1906, Cangjo obtained the release of the attachment by giving an undertaking signed by Ignacio Neis and Bruno Teves.
• The undertaking stated that if the judgment in the case is favorable to Herrera, Cangjo will redeliver the attached property to the officer of the court or pay its value.
• The undertaking also included a provision stating that Cangjo and his sureties will pay the sum demanded in the complaint, with all costs and damages, not exceeding P5,000.
• The attachment was dissolved, and the property was returned to Cangjo.
• Later, a judgment was entered in favor of Herrera, and an execution was issued, but only a portion of the judgment amount was recovered.
• Herrera then filed an action against the sureties to recover the remaining amount.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• Herrera cannot recover the remaining amount from the sureties.
• The bond given for the dissolution of the attachment is a statutory bond, and the only condition required by law is that the defendant will redeliver the attached property or pay its value if the plaintiff recovers judgment.
• The additional provision in the bond, stating that the sureties will pay the sum demanded in the complaint, is not required by law and lacks consideration.
• The defendant is entitled to the redelivery of the property without incurring any further obligation once the statutory bond is given.
• The plaintiff is entitled to be assured that if he redelivers the property, it will be applied to the payment of the ju...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court's decision is based on the principle that a bond for the dissolution of an attachment cannot include additional clauses without legal requirement or consideration.
...continue reading