G.R. No. 19439 ; January 17, 1923
PERFECTA POBLETE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LO SINGCO, RUPERTO CARREON and FABIANO BENIPAYO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Perfecta Poblete owned hemp lands. Defendant Lo Singco desired to lease them for a single stripping (pujanza). They agreed on a price of P20,000, payable partly upfront and the balance on time with security. Lo Singco, with defendants Ruperto Carreon and Fabiano Benipayo as sureties, executed a suretyship contract (Exhibit B) before a notary, binding themselves jointly and severally for P15,000, payable in installments. This document was delivered to Poblete, and on October 4, 1918, the principal contract of lease (pujanza, Exhibit A) was signed by Poblete and Lo Singco, who made the first P5,000 payment. Lo Singco stripped the hemp but failed to pay the remaining installments. Poblete sued all three. Only the sureties appealed, arguing that Poblete could not sue on the suretyship contract as she was not a party to it, and that the contract was null due to discrepancies between Exhibit B and the principal contract (Exhibit A).

ISSUE

1. Whether plaintiff Perfecta Poblete, who was not a signatory to the contract of suretyship (Exhibit B), can maintain an action to enforce it against the sureties.
2. Whether discrepancies between the terms of the suretyship contract (Exhibit B) and the principal contract of lease (Exhibit A) render the suretyship contract null and void.

RULING

1. Yes, the plaintiff can maintain the action. Although a contract generally binds only the parties thereto, Article 1257 of the Civil Code creates an exception for stipulations in favor of a third person who communicates acceptance before revocation. The suretyship contract was intended for Poblete’s benefit. She accepted it by receiving the document and, in reliance on it, allowing Lo Singco to strip her lands. Notification of acceptance beyond the act of demanding fulfillment was unnecessary as there was no revocation.
2. No, the discrepancies do not invalidate the suretyship contract. The discrepancies noted (e.g., description of land parcels, payment schedule for the final installment, and certain conditions in the principal contract not found in the suretyship) actually made the sureties’ obligations less onerous than those of the principal debtor. Under Article 1826 of the Civil Code, a surety’s obligation cannot be more burdensome than the principal’s; if it is, it is reducible to the principal’s limits. Lack of perfect coincidence between the obligations does not invalidate the suretyship. The sureties are bound according to the terms of their contract.
The judgment of the trial court against the sureties is affirmed.