Scribd
Upload
175 views2 pages

De Guzman Vs Santos

The document summarizes a legal case from 1924 regarding a partnership called the Philippine-American Construction Company that took out a loan. When the partnership defaulted on the loan, the creditor Paulino Candelaria obtained a court order to attach partnership properties. To lift the attachment, the partnership posted a bond signed by two guarantors, Santiago Lucero and Meliton Carlos. Lucero and Carlos had to pay the creditor after the partnership again defaulted. Lucero's estate, represented by administratrix Florentina de Guzman, then sued partner Anastacio Santos to recover the amount paid, even though Santos did not sign the bond. The court ruled that under Article 1158, Santos was legally obligated

Uploaded by

rengie
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
175 views2 pages

De Guzman Vs Santos

The document summarizes a legal case from 1924 regarding a partnership called the Philippine-American Construction Company that took out a loan. When the partnership defaulted on the loan, the creditor Paulino Candelaria obtained a court order to attach partnership properties. To lift the attachment, the partnership posted a bond signed by two guarantors, Santiago Lucero and Meliton Carlos. Lucero and Carlos had to pay the creditor after the partnership again defaulted. Lucero's estate, represented by administratrix Florentina de Guzman, then sued partner Anastacio Santos to recover the amount paid, even though Santos did not sign the bond. The court ruled that under Article 1158, Santos was legally obligated

Uploaded by

rengie
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/ 2

FLORENTINA DE GUZMAN, as administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Santiago

Lucero,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIO R. SANTOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS: On October 28, 1924, Jerry O. Toole, Antonio K. Abad and Anastacio R. Santos, the
defendant, formed a general mercantile partnership under the style Philippine-American Construction
Company, with a capital of P14,000, P10,000 of which were taken by way of loan from Paulino
Candelaria.
Upon filing of the complaint in civil case No. 3838, Paulino Candeleria obtained a writ of attachment
against the then defendants by virtue of which the sheriff attached properties of Jerry O. Toole valued
at P50; of Antonio K. Abad valued at P12,150; and of Anastacio R. Santos valued at P2,733.

The Philippine-American Construction Company moved for the discharge of the attached properties
and offered to post a bond for P10,000. The court granted the motion and fixed the bond at the
amount offered. On May 29, 1925, the Philippine-American Construction Company, as principal, then
represented by the partner Antonio K. Abad, and Santiago Lucero and Meliton Carlos, as guarantors,
executed a bond for P10,000 in favor of Paulino Candelaria for the lifting of the attachment under
section 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the bond thus executed, the defendant Anastacio R. Santos neither intervened nor signed
individually, but Abad testified that the former was the one who induced him to get the signature of
Lucero by taking advantage of his good relations with him.

Paulino Candelaria moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the guarantors of the
defendants. The court granted the motion and issued a writ of execution against the plaintiff, as
judicial administratrix of the deceased Santiago Lucero, and the other guarantor Meliton Carlos. The
plaintiff was compelled to pay to said creditor the sum of P5,565.55, the co-guarantor Meliton Carlos
also paid upon the bond signed by him the sum of P5,135. It thus appears that the payment made by
the plaintiff to Candelaria was reduced to the sum of P3,665.55. The plaintiff, in her said capacity,
demanded of the defendant Anastacio R. Santos the return of the aforesaid sum and, but the latter
refused.

1
ISSUES: Is the appellant bound to pay what the plaintiff had advanced to the creditor upon the
judgment?

HELD: Yes. The appellant is legally bound to pay what the plaintiff had advanced to the creditor upon
the judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the bond had given without his knowledge.
Article 1158 provides that “payment may be made by any person, whether he has an interest in the
performance of the obligation or not, and whether the payment is known and approved by the debtor
or whether he is unaware of it. Any person who makes a payment for the account of another may
recover from the debtor the amount of the payment, unless it was made against the express will of the
latter. In the latter case she can only recover from the appellant in so far as the payment has been
beneficial to the latter.” According to this legal provision, it is evident that the plaintiff-appellant is
bound to pay to the appellee what the latter had advanced to the creditor upon the judgment, and this
is the more so because it appears that although Lucero executed the bond without his knowledge,
nevertheless he did not object thereto or repudiate the same at any time.

You might also like