GR 164159; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164159 ; July 17, 2007
HONORIO C. BULOS, JR., Petitioner, vs. KOJI YASUMA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Honorio C. Bulos, Jr., together with Dr. Ramon R. Lim and Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos, obtained a loan from respondent Koji Yasuma, evidenced by a promissory note signed solely by Dr. Lim. As security, Bulos and Dr. Lim executed real estate mortgages over their properties. The parties later executed a Deed of Sale involving Bulos’s properties via dacion en pago, reducing the outstanding balance. For the remaining balance, Bulos assumed Dr. Lim’s obligation, offering shares of stock in Rural Bank of Parañaque as offset. Respondent refused the shares, citing legal restrictions on foreign ownership in rural banks.
Respondent’s subsequent demand for payment was unmet. Atty. Tabalingcos issued a check to buy the shares, but it was dishonored. Respondent filed a collection case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondent, holding Bulos solidarily liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision holding petitioner Bulos solidarily liable for the entire loan obligation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the nature of the original obligation and the subsequent agreements. The promissory note established a solidary obligation among the three borrowers, as the contract did not expressly stipulate otherwise, pursuant to Article 1207 of the Civil Code. The subsequent Deed of Assumption, wherein Bulos assumed Dr. Lim’s share, was ineffective to release the original solidary liability because it lacked the consent of the creditor, respondent Yasuma. A debtor cannot unilaterally substitute another in the obligation without creditor approval.
The later Deed of Sale via dacion en pago merely partially extinguished the obligation; it did not novate the solidary nature of the remaining debt. The offer of bank shares was a proposed payment, but its refusal by the creditor did not constitute a waiver of the outstanding balance. Consequently, Bulos remained solidarily liable for the unpaid loan. The findings of the lower courts, being supported by evidence, are binding. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the application of the law on solidary obligations and the effects of the parties’ subsequent transactions.