G.R. No. L‑3560
Date: 26 October 1907

PARTIES
– Plaintiff‑appellee: Magdalena Ledesma
– Defendant‑appellant: Ildefonso Doronila (with wife Vicenta Jalbuena as surety)

—

FACTS
1. Doronila, acting as tutor of the Ledesma children, executed a mortgage on his wife’s lands, with Jalbuena as surety, to secure his obligations.
2. The mortgage had been litigated previously: upheld against Doronila (principal debtor) in Doronila v. Lopez; set aside against Jalbuena (surety) in Jalbuena v. Ledesma.
3. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo ordered judgment for Ledesma against Doronila for ₱19,928 and directed foreclosure on the mortgaged lands.
4. The CFI clerk, however, entered judgment against both Doronila and Jalbuena for foreclosure and for recovery of the amount due.
5. Doronila appealed, contending he was entitled to credit for sums collected by his successor‑in‑interest as tutor, alleging those amounts should offset the debt.
6. He also argued that Jalbuena was never properly served or appeared as a party, invoking Act No. 190, §§ 396‑397.

ISSUE
Whether the judgment of foreclosure and liability against Ildefonso Doronila should be affirmed despite his claim of credit and the alleged procedural defect concerning the surety’s service.

RULING
– The Supreme Court affirms the CFI judgment against Ildefonso Doronila, finding his claim of credit unsupported by the evidence.
– The Court does not decide the procedural issue on Jalbuena’s service because she did not appeal the judgment entered against her; thus, the matter remains for determination in separate proceedings.
– Costs of this appeal are awarded to the plaintiff‑appellee.

Concurring: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Johnson, Willard.