G.R. No. L-17845, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 924


On March 28, 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the BPI, or its order, a promissory note for P15,000.00 with interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand. The P15,000.00 proceeds were received by Oscar Varona alone. Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as co-makers only as a favor to Oscar Varona. June 15, 1950 the outstanding balance is P4,850.00. No payment thereafter was made. On Oct 16 1952, the bank collected from Sadaya total of P5,416.12 wit interest. Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands.

Victor Sevilla died while Francisco Sevilla was named as the administrator. Sadaya filed a creditor’s claim for the above sum of P5,746.12, plus attorney’s fees in the sum of P1,500.00. The administrator resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased Victor Sevilla “did not receive any amount as consideration for the promissory note,” but signed it only “as surety for Oscar Varona. The trial court admitted the claim of Sadaya though it was reversed by the CA.


Whether or not Sadaya can claim against the estate of Sevilla as co-accomodation party when Verona as principal debtor is not yet insolvent.


NO. Varona is bound by the obligation to reimburse Sadaya. Solidary accommodation maker, who made payment, has the right to contribution from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence of agreement to the contrary between them, and subject to conditions imposed by law.

The requisites before one accommodation maker can seek reimbursement from a co-accommodation maker:

─ ART. 2073 of NCC: When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the share which proportionally owes from him. If any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others, including the payer, in the same proportion.

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. 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, or -no judicial demand just voluntarily; and (b) a principal debtor is insolvent. – Varona is not 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.

*Case digest by Krishianne Louise C. Labiano, JD-IV, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020