Ronquillo v.

Court of Appeals Facts: Ronquillo was one of the 4 defendants in a civil case filed by one Antonio So for collection of sum of money. The other defendants were Offshore Catertrade (Offshore), Johnny Tan and Pilar Tan. The amount sought to be collected represents the value of the checks issued by the said defendants in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them. The checks were dishonored. The lower court in this case rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to reduce its total claim and defendants agreed to acknowledge the validity of such claim. Both parties further agreed that in case of failure to comply with the terms, the innocent party will be entitled to an execution of the decision based on the compromise agreement. Ronquillo herein failed to pay the initial payment required by the compromise agreement. His excuse was that his failure to pay was a result of Antonios own act of making himself scarce and inaccessible. Thus, he prayed to the court that Antonio be ordered to accept his payment. Antonio, however, refused to accept payments. So instead of paying to him, Ronquillo and Pilar deposited the amount to be paid with the Clerk of Court. The other defendants failed to pay their shares in the judgment. Since the amount was not fully paid, Antonio moved for reconsideration of the order of execution and prayed instead for the execution of the decision in its entirety against all defendants jointly and severally This was opposed to by Ronquillo on the ground that the decision of the lower court, which already became final did not expressly declare to their liabilities to be solidary. Consequently, each defendant is obliged to pay only his own pro-rata or of the amount due and payable. In view of the foregoing, the court issued a writ of execution against the properties of defendants (including Ronquillo) singly or jointly liable. Issue: Whether or not the defendants are liable solidarily.

Ratio: Solidary. By the express term of the compromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation individually and jointly. Individually has the same meaning as collectively, separately, distinctively, respectively or severally. An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a several obligation and a several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation. In the absence of a finding of facts that the defendants made themselves individually liable for the debt incurred they are each liable only for of the said amount. The obligation in the case at bar being described as "individually and jointly", the same is therefore enforceable against one of the numerous obligors. PNB v. Independent Planters Association Facts: This case stems from a complaint filed by PNB against several solidary debtors for the collection of a sum of money on the ground that one of the defendants died during the pendency of the case (citing Article 1216 of the Civil Code). However, the other defendants opposed the same since, being a money claim based on contract, it should be prosecuted in the testate or intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased defendant pursuant to the Rules of Court. Issue: Whether or not in an action for collection of sum of money based on contract against all the solidary debtors, the death of one defendant deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the surviving defendants. Ratio: Where two persons are bound in solidum for the same debt and one of them dies, the whole indebtedness can be proved against the estate of the latter, the decedents liability being absolute and primary; and if the claim is not presented within the time provided by the rules, the same will be barred as against the estate. It is evident from the foregoing that Section 6 of Rule 87 (now Rule 86) provides the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the deceased debtor, but there is certainly nothing in the said provision making compliance with such

procedure a condition precedent before an ordinary action against the surviving solidary debtors, should the creditor choose to demand payment from the latter, could be entertained to the extent that failure to observe the same would deprive the court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action against the surviving debtors. Upon the other hand, the Civil Code expressly allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. There is, therefore, nothing improper in the creditor's filing of an action against the surviving solidary debtors alone , instead of instituting a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor wherein his claim could be filed. The choice is undoubtedly left to the solidary, creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed against the surviving debtors and file its claim in the estate of the deceased solidary debtor.