Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ruling
Machetti agreed to contruct a building for Hospicio for Is Fidelity answerable to Hospicio as Guaranty of
64,000. One of the conditions was to obtain a
Machetti?
guarantee with the Fidelity and Surety Company of
the Philippine Island.
Fidelity having bound itself to pay only the event its
principal, cannot pay it follows that it cannot be
The contract read as: For value received we hereby
compelled to pay until it is shown that Machetti is
guarantee compliance with the terms and conditions as unable to pay. In this case, it appears that the contract
outlined in the above contract
is the guarantor's separate undertaking in which the
principal does not join, that its rest on a separate
Construction was complied but it was later found out consideration moving from the principal and that
that the work was not carried in accordance with the
although it is written in continuation of the contract for
specifications.
the construction of the building, it is a collateral
undertaking separate and distinct from the latter.
Hospicio filed for damages for the noncompliance of
Machetti. Machetti declared insolvency.
Kelly bought goods on credit with Wise and Co, Lim, Is Lim Liable?
acted as the surety for Kelly. The arrangement is that
Kelly will apply the proceeds of its sale to discharge of No. Lim, as surety, did not undertake to pay the
his indebtedness.
principal amount due. His agreement was limited to
respond for the performance by Kelly of one of the
It has been alleged by Wise and Co. that Kelly failed to accessory pacts, namely the undertaking to deliver to
pay any money in relation to the credit. Lim was also Wise the total proceeds of the sales of the merchandise
filed in the collection suit.
for the invoice value of which the promissory note was
given.
Commonwealth vs. CA
Mere gurantor.
Nothing in the language of the receipt, Exh A, or in the
proven circumstances attending its execution can
logically be considered as evidencing the creation of
The check was, however, dishonoured. Upon of the
an agency between Perlas, as principal, and Vizconde
dishonorment, Pagulayan paid Perlas 5,000 and gave 3 as agent, for the sale of the formers ring.
Certificate of Title to guarantee delivery of the balance If any agency was established, it was one between
of such value. Perlas filed a complaint for estafa
Perlas and Pagulayan only, this being the logical
against Pagulayan and Vizonde.
conclusion from the use of the singular I in said
clause, in conjunction with the fact that the part of the
receipt in which the clause appears bears only the
signature of Pagulayan.
No.
Under the present Civil Code (Article 1311), as well as
under the Civil Code of 1889 (Article 1257), the rule is
that
Contracts take effect only as between the parties, their
assigns and heirs, except in the case where the rights
and obligations arising from the contract are not
transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by
provision of law.
Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a
partys contractual rights and obligations are
transmissible to the successors.
Exceptions:
1. Stipulation
2. Operation of Law
3. Nature
Arroyo is the appointed guardian of an imbecile, while Whether or not the bondsmen are liable?
Jungsay are the previous guardian and bondsmen who
absonded with funds of his ward.
Yes. For the surety to be not liable, he must be able to
point out property of the principal debtor which are
The Lower Court ordered the Defendant to pay the
realizable and is situated within the Philippines to
petitioner, which the bondsmen appealed. Defendants insure the fulfillment of the obligation and furnish the
also pointed out properties of the previous guardian
creditor with the means of obtaining its fulfillment
which are now being adversely claimed by the 3rd
without delay
parties.
Bitanga vs Pyramid
Ong vs. PCIB