G.R. No. L‑3755
November 23, 1907

FACTS
– C.C. Pyle (plaintiff) sued Roy W. Johnson (principal debtor) and his guarantors, Manuel Corpus and Mariano Padilla, on a written note dated 16 January 1906 wherein Johnson promised to pay ₱2,898 to Pyle, “for business purposes,” and the two guarantors signed a surety undertaking.
– The trial court ordered Johnson to pay the amount with interest and costs; each guarantor was ordered to pay one‑half of any deficiency, also with interest and costs.
– Corpus and Padilla appealed, denying that they had signed the note and contending there was no consideration for their guarantee and that the note required a protest.

ISSUE
1. Whether the alleged guarantors are bound by the surety agreement despite their denial of signature.
2. Whether consideration is required for the guaranty and whether a protest is necessary to enforce the obligations of the sureties.

RULING
– The Court upheld the trial court’s findings. The notary public’s certificate of acknowledgment, the similarity of Padilla’s signature to his authentic one, the plaintiff’s testimony of delivery, and Corpus’s admissions of liability constitute sufficient proof of their signatures. Mere denial by the guarantors, without affirmative evidence, does not outweigh the disinterested proof.
– Consideration for a guarantee need not be separate; the consideration supporting the principal debt suffices to sustain the surety’s obligation.
– A protest is immaterial. If the instrument is governed by the Civil Code, no protest is required; if it is a mercantile instrument, protest against the maker is not required, and consequently protest against the sureties is likewise unnecessary (Arts. 459, 460, 483, 517, 487, Code of Commerce).
– The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and ordered the costs against the appellants.

Disposition: Judgment affirmed; costs awarded to plaintiff.