Ronquillo vs CA

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 Ronquillo vs CA

    1/1

    1Mark Jorel O. Calida | 1C 2007 | ObliCon

    ART. 1207. THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO OR MORE CREDITORS OR OF TWO ORMORE DEBTORS IN ONE AND THE SAME OBLIGATION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EACH

    ONE OF THE FORMER HAS A RIGHT TO DEMAND, OR THAT EACH ONE OF THELATTER IS BOUND TO RENDER, ENTIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESTATION.THERE IS A SOLIDARY LIABILITY ONLY WHEN THE OBLIGATION EXPRESSLY SOSTATES, OR WHEN THE LAW OR THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION REQUIRESSOLIDARITY.(1137A)

    RONQUILLO V.COURT OF APPEALS

    132SCRA274

    Facts: INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY IS SOLIDARY CASE

    Ernesto Ronquillo (Ronquillo) was one of four defendants in a Civil Casefiled by respondent Antonio So (So) for the collection of P118,498.98, thevalue of the check issued by the said defendant in payment for foodstuffsdelivered to and received by them. The said checks were dishonored bythe drawee bank.

    The lower court rendered a decision based on the compromise agreementby the parities. The agreement reduced the claim to P110,000 and boundthe defendants to initially pay P55,000 of the debt before December 24,1978. The defendants agreed to pay the balance individually and jointlywithin a period of six months or before June 30, 1980.

    So filed a Motion for Execution on the ground that the defendants failedto make the initial payment of P55,000 as provided in theabovementioned decision. Ronquillo opposed the motion for executionalleging that his inability to make the payment was due to Sos own act ofmaking himself inaccessible.

    Ronquillo tendered the amount of P13,750 as his share of the P55,000initial payment. Another defendant, Pilar Tan (Tan) offered to pay thesame amount. Because So refused to accept their payments, demanding

    the full initial payment. Ronquillo and Tan deposited the amount with thecourt. The court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for thebalance of the initial amount payable to the two other defendants.

    So sought the reconsideration of the Order and prayed for the executionof the decision in its entirety against all defendants, jointly and severally.So opposed the motion arguing that the lower court held that the liabilityof the 4 defendants was not expressly declared to be solidary,consequently each defendant is obliged to pay only his own pro-rata or1/4 of the amount due and payable.

    A writ of execution was issued by the court for the payment of P82,500[P55,000 (balance from the whole debt) + 27500 (unpaid shares of initialpayment from two other defendants or P13,750 + P13750)] against the

    properties of the defendants including Ronquillo, singly or jointly liable.The sheriff issued a notice for the sale of certain furniture and appliancesfound in Ronquillos residence to satisfy the sum of P82,500.

    Issue: W/N the liability of the 4 defendants including Ronquillo solidary.

    Held: Yes.

    The pertinent provisions are Art. 12071 and Art. 1208.2 By the terms of thecompromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants

    obligated themselves to pay their obligation individually and jointly.

    An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a severalobligation. A several obligation is one by which one individual binds himselfto perform the whole obligation.

    1 Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in oneand the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right todemand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with theprestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, orwhen the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

    2 Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to whichthe preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall bepresumed to be divided into as many shares as there are creditors or debtors, thecredits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules ofCourt governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a)