Case Digest (G.R. No. 108991)
Facts:
In Nicencio Tan Quiombing v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Francisco and Manuelita A. Saligo (G.R. No. 93010, August 30, 1990), petitioner Nicencio Tan Quiombing and Dante Biscocho entered into a Construction and Service Agreement on August 30, 1983 with private respondents Francisco and Manuelita Saligo for the erection of a house at Antipolo, Rizal, for ₱137,940.00, binding themselves jointly and severally to complete the work. On October 10, 1984, Quiombing and Manuelita Saligo executed a second agreement acknowledging completion and fixing the balance due. By promissory note dated November 19, 1984, Manuelita alone promised payment of ₱125,363.50 on or before December 31, 1984, to Quiombing. When respondents failed to pay, Quiombing sued on October 9, 1986 in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo for recovery of the balance with charges and interest. The Saligos moved to dismiss for non-joinder of Biscocho as an indispensable party; the trial court initially denied but later
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 108991)
Facts:
- Construction and Service Agreement (August 30, 1983)
- Nicencio Tan Quiombing and Dante Biscocho (First Party) bound themselves jointly and severally to build a house for Francisco and Manuelita Saligo (Second Party).
- Contract price was ₱137,940.00, payable by the Saligos.
- Second Written Agreement (October 10, 1984)
- Manuelita Saligo acknowledged completion of the house.
- She undertook to pay the balance of the contract price under the terms of the second agreement.
- Promissory Note (November 19, 1984)
- Manuelita Saligo, on behalf of herself and her husband, signed a note for ₱125,363.50, payable on or before December 31, 1984, to Nicencio Tan Quiombing.
- Trial Proceedings
- On October 9, 1986, Quiombing filed a complaint for recovery of the unpaid balance plus charges and interests.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for non-joinder of Dante Biscocho as an indispensable party. The trial court first denied, then granted the motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice to amend.
- Quiombing appealed; the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, ruling that Biscocho’s rights would be affected and that the second agreement was part of the original contract.
Issues:
- Whether one of two solidary creditors may sue alone for recovery of the entire debt without joining the other creditor.
- Whether the debtor is entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of the second solidary creditor as an indispensable party.
- Whether the second solidary creditor is an indispensable party under the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)