GR L 4149; (January, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑4149
EN BANC January 20, 1908
—
FACTS: 1. Antonio de la Riva contracted to purchase a business in Catanduanes from Rafael Molina for $134,636.12 (Mexican currency), payable in installments.
2. Molina sued de la Riva for one installment of ₱33,659.03 (Case No. 3402, later elevated as No. 2721).
3. De la Riva posted a ₱35,000 bond naming Enrique F. Somes and Roberto Spalding as principal sureties.
4. Execution against de la Riva failed; the sheriff could not locate his property. An alias execution was then directed against the sureties.
5. The sureties claimed de la Riva possessed property in Catanduanes, but a receiver had been appointed. The Supreme Court later declared that receiver null and void.
6. The lower court ordered execution against Somes; his property was publicly sold to Molina on 19 April 1907 to satisfy the judgment.
7. Somes filed a petition seeking:
– Subrogation to the judgment in favor of Molina (right of preference to levy on de la Riva’s property).
– Injunctions restraining further execution against de la Riva’s assets pending his subrogation claim.
—
ISSUE: Whether Enrique F. Somes, as a surety who had satisfied the debtor’s (de la Riva’s) obligation, is entitled to subrogation to the creditor’s (Molina’s) rights and thus to the priority of execution against de la Riva’s property, notwithstanding the earlier execution against his own assets.
—
RULING: The Supreme Court held that:
1. Under Article 1852 of the Civil Code and the doctrine of subrogation, a surety who pays the debtor’s debt acquires the creditor’s rights and may step into the creditor’s shoes.
2. The facts established that Somes, as surety, fully discharged de la Riva’s liability; consequently, he is subrogated to Molina’s judgment in Case No. 3402 (Supreme Court No. 2721).
3. The lower court’s order of execution against Somes and its denial of his injunction were reversed.
4. The case was remanded with instructions that Somes be recognized as the holder of Molina’s preferential claim over de la Riva’s assets; the lower court was to enforce the judgment accordingly.
The decision was rendered without costs to the plaintiff‑appellant.
—