G.R. No. L-3560 - Ledesma vs. Doronila

The action was instituted to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, Ildefonso Doronila, which was secured by his wife, Vicenta Jalbuena, acting as his surety.
The mortgage was given to secure his obligation as tutor of the Ledesma children, an obligation which had already been the subject of previous litigation in this court.
In related cases, the principal debtor’s obligation had been sustained (as seen in Doronila vs. Lopez, 3 Phil. Rep. 360), whereas the surety’s liability had been set aside (as in Jalbuena vs. Ledesma).

The judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against Ildefonso Doronila.

The directed judgment favored the plaintiff for the foreclosure of the mortgage and for a sum of P19,928.

Despite the judge’s directive, the clerk entered judgment against both defendants.

The clerk’s entry not only included the foreclosure of the mortgage but also added recovery of the amount due.

As a consequence of the judicial action, the defendant’s liability on the obligation was conclusively determined.

Subsequently, Doronila asserted that various sums collected by his successor in interest as tutor should allow him to claim credit on the judgment amount.

The record was scrutinized, and it was found that Doronila’s claim for credit had not been substantiated by sufficient proof.

It was observed from the record that the surety, Vicenta Jalbuena, was not made a formal party to the action.

Although procedural irregularities existed concerning her involvement, the surety did not appeal the judgment entered against her.

As a result, the validity of the judgment against her was left to be resolved in other proceedings.

Whether the defendant’s claim for credit based on sums collected by his successor in interest as tutor was properly supported by the record.

The central question revolved around whether these sums could offset the amount guaranteed by the mortgage.

Although there was a procedural irregularity in that the surety was not formally served or appeared, it raised the issue of whether her judgment should be scrutinized differently or set aside.