BPI vs.

De Coster Facts: De Coster, La Orden and Poizat issued a promissory note in favor of BPI for P292,000 The promissory note was secured by several mortgages on the several properties of the debtors The debtors defaulted so BPI asked the court to foreclose the mortgages CFI issued an execution order against the three debtors Gabriela de Coster, wife of Poizat, complained that at the time of the filing of the complaint she was in Paris and was absent in the Philippines .and has no knowledge of the actual facts. De Coster also alleged that the mortgage was made without her consent and made in excess of the authority given his husband and therefore it was null and void.

Issue: W/N de Coster is also liable as to the debt incurred by his husband

Held: No! Husband has no authority to execute a promissory note in behalf of his wife or to make the latter liable as an accommodation maker. Also, the debt was a preexisting debt of the husband wherein the wife was not a party and has no legal obligation to pay. The obligation of the husband stated in the power if attorney was to borrow money for or in account of his wife as her agent as her attorney in fact. That does not carry with it the power to make his wife liable as a surety for his preexisting debt Also, the husband, the agent of his wife, failed to represent the interest of his principal in court. This gave the principal the authority to obtain relief under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.