Arroyo vs Jungsay Plaintiff is Jose Arroyo, guardian of Tito Jocsing, an imbecile. Defendant is Florentino Jungsay and his bondsmen.

Florentino was the former guardian of Jocsing. The defendants absconded with Jocsings funds. A judgement was made by the lower court against the defendants for P6,000, together with interest and costs, the bondsmen appealed. Issue: W/N the defendants should be credited with P4,400, the alleged value of certain property but is in the exclusive possession of third parties under claim of ownership. Held: No. Defendants invoke the benefit of excussion in Article 1834 of the (old) Civil Code. Excussion gives to the surety the benefit of a levy (excusion), even when a judgment is rendered against both the surety and the principal. The effect of this is to stay proceedings against the surety until judgment has been obtained against the principal debtor, and execution against his property has proved insufficient. The court however held that before the surety is entitled to this benefit, he must point out to the creditor property of the principal debtor which can be sold and which is sufficient to cover the amount of the debt. (Article 1832 OCC, read Art 2060 NCC). According to Manresa, the claim for the benefit of excussion have several elements: 1.) It must be claimed in a timely manner 2.) Surety must designate property of the debtor where the debt is to be satisfied and importantly, 3.) Such property must be realizable and that it be situated in Spanish territory. The same requisites were cited in Hill &Co, 1.) The surety who wants to claim the benefit of excussion must demand it in limine (on the institution of the proceedings) 2.) He must point out creditor property of the principal debtor 3.) The property must not be incumbered, subject to seizure; and must furnish a sufficient sum to have the discussion carried into effect The purpose of a bond is to secure performance and the attachment of a property situated a great distance away or a property that is not readily realizable would be a lengthy and extremely difficult proceeding. The surety is tasked with designating the property because he the one to be benefitted by such task and the one most interested in avoiding difficulties in its execution. In this case, the property the defendants want credited to them is not sufficient to pay the indebtedness; it is not salable; it is so incumbered that third parties have, full possession under claim of ownership. In all these respects the sureties have failed to meet the requirements of article 1832 of the Civil Code. Where a guardian absconds or is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the proper method, under article 1834 of the Civil Code and section 577 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in order to ascertain whether such guardian is liable and to what extent, in order to bind the sureties on his official bond, is by a proceeding in the nature of a civil action wherein the sureties are made parties and given an opportunity to be heard. All this was done in the instant case Disposition: Lower court affirmed.