G.R. No. L-10168; July 22, 1916
JOSE M. A. ARROYO, guardian of Tito Jocsing, an imbecile, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO HILARIO JUNGSAY, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Jose M. A. Arroyo, is the court-appointed guardian of Tito Jocsing, an imbecile, succeeding the former guardian, Florentino Hilario Jungsay, who absconded with the ward’s funds. The defendants are the absconding guardian, Jungsay, and his bondsmen (sureties). The plaintiff obtained a judgment in the lower court against all defendants for the sum of P6,000, plus interest and costs. Only the bondsmen appealed. The principal issue on appeal is whether the appellant bondsmen should be credited with P4,400, representing the alleged value of certain property attached as belonging to the absconding guardian. This property is, however, in the exclusive possession of third parties who claim ownership of it.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant bondsmen are entitled to the benefit of excussion (discussion) under Article 1834 of the Civil Code, requiring the creditor to first exhaust the property of the principal debtor (the absconding guardian) before proceeding against the sureties, by virtue of the attached property in the possession of third parties.

RULING:
No, the bondsmen are not entitled to the credit or the benefit of excussion. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The Court held that for a surety to validly invoke the benefit of excussion under Articles 1832 and 1834 of the Civil Code, they must not only demand it at the proper time but must also point out to the creditor property of the principal debtor that is leviable, sufficient to cover the debt, and readily realizable. Citing commentaries and jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that the property designated must be free from encumbrances and subject to seizure.

In this case, the property pointed out by the sureties failed to meet these essential conditions. The property was not sufficient to pay the debt, was not readily salable, and was so encumbered that third parties held full possession under claims of ownership. Determining the validity of these third-party claims would require separate litigation. Since the sureties failed to fulfill the requirements of Article 1832, they were not entitled to the benefit of excussion. The procedure followeda civil action against both the principal and the suretieswas proper under the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure.