Title
Sadaya vs. Sevilla
Case
G.R. No. L-17845
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1967
Accommodation makers Sadaya and Sevilla jointly liable on promissory note; Sadaya voluntarily paid bank, sought reimbursement from Sevilla’s estate. SC denied claim, citing lack of judicial demand or principal debtor’s insolvency under Article 2073.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138894)

Payment Obligations and Claims

Oscar Varona received the entire amount of the loan but Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note solely to accommodate Varona, without receiving any value from the transaction. While payments were made, by June 15, 1950, an outstanding balance of P4,850.00 remained, which the bank collected from Sadaya on October 6, 1952, totaling P5,746.12 including interest. Following Varona's failure to reimburse Sadaya despite multiple demands, Victor Sevilla passed away, prompting intestate proceedings in which Sadaya made a claim as a creditor against Sevilla's estate.

Denial of Claim by Estate Administrator

The administrator of Victor Sevilla’s estate resisted Sadaya's claim, arguing that Sevilla had not received consideration and was merely a surety for Varona. However, the trial court admitted Sadaya's claim for P5,746.12, ordering the administrator to pay from any available estate funds. This order was later challenged by the administrator in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's ruling by disallowing Sadaya’s claim.

Legal Basis for Joint Liability

The Supreme Court reiterated that both Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya were joint and several accommodation makers on the promissory note. Their obligations to the bank were bound together with Varona. Although Sevilla and Sadaya did not benefit from the loan, their liability remained intact as defined in the promissory note. Thus, the bank had the right to pursue collection against either of the accommodation makers.

Right to Reimbursement

The Court emphasized that Sadaya, who paid the bank, had a right to seek reimbursement from Varona. This right arises from the principle of indemnity, where it is implied that Varona, having received the loan proceeds, is obligated to reimburse Sadaya, who covered the debt. The legal relationship among the three obligors was defined by their obligations to one another and to the bank as joint and several obligors while their recourse against each other is governed by specific legal provisions.

Conditions for Contribution Among Co-Obligors

The Court analyzed that under the Civil Code, one accommodation maker can only demand reimbursement from a co-accommodation maker under specified conditions

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.