Scribd
Upload
65 views1 page

Gonzales V La Previsora

Mendoza applied for a loan of P9,000 from La Previsora Filipina to construct a house, and Gonzales consented to mortgage his land and building as collateral security for the loan. The issue is whether Mendoza and Gonzales are solidary liable to La Previsora for the loan. The court held that Mendoza and Gonzales are not solidary liable because the contract does not clearly state that Gonzales is a co-borrower with Mendoza or that they are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the loan, even if they were co-borrowers.

Uploaded by

Kat Jolejole
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views1 page

Gonzales V La Previsora

Mendoza applied for a loan of P9,000 from La Previsora Filipina to construct a house, and Gonzales consented to mortgage his land and building as collateral security for the loan. The issue is whether Mendoza and Gonzales are solidary liable to La Previsora for the loan. The court held that Mendoza and Gonzales are not solidary liable because the contract does not clearly state that Gonzales is a co-borrower with Mendoza or that they are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the loan, even if they were co-borrowers.

Uploaded by

Kat Jolejole
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

GIL GONZALES v.

LA PREVISORA FILIPINA
[G.R. No. 48699. March 30, 1943.]
Facts:
Mendoza applied to La Previsora Filipina for a loan of P9,000 to be invested in
the construction of a house of strong materials and other improvements on
his lot. Gonzales consented to mortgaged his land and building as a collateral
security for the loan applied by Mendoza.
Issue:
Are Mendoza and Gonzales solidary liable to La Previsora?
Held:
No. It does not clearly and unequivocally appear from the contract in
question that Gonzales is a coborrower of Mendoza; nor is there any express
stipulation therein that Gonzales is jointly and severally liable with Mendoza
for the entire amount of the loan. Even if Mendoza and Gonzales were
coborrowers they would not be bound in solido in the absence of an express
stipulation to that effect.

You might also like