Jauclan v. Querol, 38 Phil 718 (1918)
Facts:
Lino Dayandante and Hermenegilda Rogero executed a private writing where they jointly and severally
acknowledged themselves to be indebted in the amount of Php13,332.23 to Roman Jaucian where in
Hermenegilda Rogero signed the document as surety for Lino Dayandante. Rogero brought in action in
the Court of First Instance of Albay against Jaucian and prayed that the document in question be
cancelled because she alleged that her signature was obtained through fraud. In his answer, Jaucian
requested for the due amount because it is already mature at that time. The Court rendered its decision
in favor of Rogero in which Jaucian appealed to SC.
While the case is pending with the SC, Hermenegilda died and her administrator was substituted as the
party plaintiff and appellee. Jaucian then appeared in the estate proceedings and filed a petition for the
execution of the document of October 1908 to which he prayed for the estate administrator to pay the
full amount plus interest because Rogero’s co-obligor failed to do his part. Which was denied as well as
his subsequent petition.
Issue:
WON deceased Rogero can be solidary liable despite of her being just a surety for Dayandante?
Held:
Yes.
Her position on this is that as if she was also the principal debtor.
Rogero was nevertheless bound jointly and severally with him in the obligation. Article 1822 and Article
1144 of the civil code provides:
Art 1822: “By security a person binds himself to pay or perform for a third person in case the latter
should fail to do so. If the surety binds himself jointly with the principal debtor, the provisions of section
fourth, chapter third, title first, of this book shall be observed."
Art 1144: "A creditor may sue any of the joint and several (solidarios) debtors or all of them
simultaneously. The claims instituted against one shall not be an obstacle for those that may be later presented against
the others, as long as it does not appear that the debt has been collected in full."
The decision of the trial court denying appellant’s petition and his motion for new trial was coorect and
should be affirmed.
