GUARANTY and SURETY- G.R. No. 151060

The claim that Philguarantee had no more obligation to pay TRB because of the expiration of the contract of guarantee is untenable. The mere fact that payment was made after the expiration of the guarantee is not controlling. What is controlling is that demand on Philguarantee had taken place while the guarantee was still in force.

There is no basis for JN’s claim that Philguarantee was a mere volunteer payor and had no legal obligation to pay TRB. The law does not prohibit the payment by a guarantor on his own violation, heedless of the benefit of excussion. In fact, it recognizes the right of a guarantor to recover what it has paid, even if payment was made before the debt becomes due, or if made without notice to the debtor, subject of course to some conditions. (JN Dev. Corp., et al. vs. Phil. Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., G.R. No. 151060, August 31, 2005).