G.R. No. L-17845; April 27, 1967
INTESTATE ESTATE OF VICTOR SEVILLA. SIMEON SADAYA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO SEVILLA, respondent.

FACTS

On March 28, 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona, and Simeon Sadaya executed a joint and several promissory note in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands for P15,000. The entire proceeds were received by Oscar Varona alone, with Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signing only as accommodation parties (co-makers) as a favor to Varona. After partial payments, an outstanding balance of P4,850 remained as of June 15, 1950. On October 6, 1952, Sadaya paid the bank the balance plus interest, totaling P5,416.12. Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite demands. Victor Sevilla died, and intestate estate proceedings were commenced. In those proceedings, Sadaya filed a creditor’s claim for P5,746.12 against Sevilla’s estate. The administrator resisted, arguing Sevilla signed only as a surety for Varona and received no value from the note. The trial court admitted Sadaya’s claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, disapproving the claim. Sadaya then appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, modifying his claim to seek only 50% (P2,873.06) from Sevilla’s estate.

ISSUE

Whether Simeon Sadaya, as an accommodation co-maker who paid the obligation, is entitled to seek direct reimbursement or contribution from the estate of his co-accommodation maker, Victor Sevilla, without first having sued the principal debtor, Oscar Varona, or proving Varona’s insolvency.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, disallowing Sadaya’s claim against Sevilla’s estate. The Court ruled that while accommodation makers are jointly and severally liable to the payee (the bank), their relationship inter se is that of co-guarantors for the principal debtor. Under Article 2073 of the Civil Code, a guarantor (or accommodation maker) who pays may demand proportional contribution from his co-guarantors only under two conditions: (1) if the payment was made by virtue of a judicial demand, or (2) if the principal debtor is insolvent. The Court found that Sadaya’s payment to the bank was voluntary and without judicial demand, and there was an absolute absence of evidence showing that the principal debtor, Oscar Varona, was insolvent. Consequently, Sadaya failed to meet the prerequisites under Article 2073 to claim direct contribution from his co-accommodation maker, Victor Sevilla. His proper recourse was to first seek reimbursement from the principal debtor, Oscar Varona.