SADAYA V. SEVILLA        

19 SCRA 924

 

FACTS:

Sadaya, Sevilla and Varona signed solidarily a promissory note in favor of the bank.  Varona was the only one who received the proceeds of the note.  Sadaya  and  Sevilla  both  signed  as  co-makers  to  accommodate  Varona.  Thereafter, the bank collected from Sadaya.  Varona failed to reimburse.
 
Consequently,   Sevilla   died   and   intestate   estate   proceedings   were established.  Sadaya filed a creditor’s claim on his estate for the payment he made on the note.  The administrator resisted the claim on the ground that  Sevilla  didn't  receive  any  proceeds  of  the  loan.    The  trial  court admitted the claim of Sadaya though tis was reversed by the CA.
 

HELD:

Sadaya could have sought reimbursement from Varona, which is right and just  as  the  latter  was  the  only  one  who  received  value  for  the  note executed.  There is an implied contract of indemnity between Sadaya and Varona upon the former’s payment of the obligation to the bank.
 
Surely enough, the obligations of Varona and Sevilla to Sadaya cannot be joint and several.  For indeed, had payment been made by Varona, Varona couldn't had reason to seek reimbursement from either Sadaya or Sevilla.  After all, the proceeds of the loan went to Varona alone.
 
On  principle,  a  solidary  accommodation  maker—who  made  payment—has the right to contribution, from his co-accomodation maker, in the absence of agreement to the contrary between them, subject to conditions imposed by  law.    This  right  springs  from  an  implied  promise  to  share  equally  the
burdens  thay  may  ensue  from  their  having  consented  to  stamp  their signatures on the promissory note.
 
The following are the rules:

1.    A  joint  and  several  accommodation  maker  of  a  negotiable promissory   note   may   demand   from   the   principal   debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee

2.    A  joint  and  several  accommodation  maker  who  pays  on  the  said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first directing his action against the
principal debtor provided that
a.    He made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand
b.    A principal debtor is insolvent.

It was never shown that there was a judicial demand on Sadaya to pay the obligation and also, it was never proven that Varona was insolvent.  Thus, Sadaya cannot proceed against Sevilla for reimbursement.