JAUCIAN v.

QUEROL
October 5, 1918 | Street, J. | Solidary Obligations > Effects > Solidary Debtor in relation to Solidary Co-Debtor
PETITIONER: Roman Jaucian
RESPONDENT: Francisco Querol, administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Hermenegilda Rogero
SUMMARY: Dayadante and Rogero obliged themselves to be indebted to Jaucian. Rogero is the surety, but on the terms
of obligation both debtors bound themselves jointly and severally. Jaucian went after Rogero but she had died, so he
charged the claim against Rogeros estate belatedly, 2 years after the committee filed their report for allowance on the
claims against the estate. Rogero being solidarily liable to the obligation with Dayadante, Jaucians claim is an absolute
one, one that should have been allowed by the committee had it been presented to the committee on time.
DOCTRINE: Where a guarantor or surety is jointly and severally bound with the principal debtor, the
obligation of the guarantor or surety, equally with that of the principal debtor, is absolute and not
contingent.

FACTS:
1.

Oct 1908 Lino Dayadante and Hermenegilda Rogero

executed a private writing in which they acknowledged
themselves to be indebted to Roman Jaucian in the sum
of P13,332.33.
2. Terms of the obligation: We jointly and severally
acknowledge our indebtedness.
3. Rogero signed this document in the capacity of surety
for Dayadante, but on the instrument both debtors
bound themselves jointly and severally to the creditor,
and there is nothing in the terms of obligation itself to
show that the relation between the two debtors was
that of principal and surety.
4. Nov 1909 Rogero brought an action in the CFI against
Jaucian, asking that the document in question be
cancelled as to her on the ground that her signature was
obtained by means of fraud. In his answer, Jauciano
asked for judgment against Rogero for the amount due
upon the obligation which has already matured.
5. CFI: in favor of Rogero.
6. Appeal to the SC: limited to the issues concerning the
validity of the document.
7. While the case was pending in the SC, Rogero died and
the administrator of her estate, Francisco Querol, was
substituted in the case.
8. Nov 1918 SC: reversed the CFI judgment, the disputed
claim by Jaucian was valid.
9. During pendency of the appeal, proceedings were had
in the CFI for the administration of the estate of Rogero.
Querol was named administrator and a committee was
appointed to pass upon claims against the estate.
10. Sept 1912 the committee on claims filed its report.
11. March 1914 Jaucian entered its appearance in the
estate proceedings and filed with the court a petition in
which he averred:
- The execution of the document of Oct 1908 by the
deceased
- The failure of her coobligor Dayadante to pay any
part of the debt (except P100)
- The complete insolvency of Dayadante.

12. Jaucian: prayed for an Order directing Querol to pay

him the principal sum with interest.
13. Querol: opposed the granting of the petition on the
ground that the claim had never been presented to the
committee on claims for allowance, and that more than
18 months had passed since the filing of the committee
report, therefore the court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the demand.
14. A hearing upon the petition was held by Moir.
15. Judge Moirs April 13, 1914 Order:
- During the pendency of the suit for the cancellation
of the CFI decision in favor of Rogero, Querol was
named administrator of the estate and made party
to the pending action. As such, he had full
knowledge of the claim and was given an
opportunity to make his defense.
- No contingent claim was filed before the
commissioners by Jaucian.
This claim is a
contingent claim, because Rogero was a surety of
Dayadante.
- Since the administrator defended the suit in the SC,
the court considers this as substantial compliance
to the presentation of the claim to the
commissioners. Said defense having been made by
Querol, he cannot now come into court and hide
behind a technicality and say that Jaucians claim is
barred.
- There must be legal action taken against Dayadante
as the principal to determine WON he is insolvent.
- Rogero having been simply surety for Dayadante,
the administrator has a right to require that Jaucian
produce a judgment for his claim against
Dayadante in order that said admin may be
subrogated to the rights of Jaucian against
Dayadante.
- Suggestion: When this action shall have been
taken against Dayadante and an execution returned
no effects, then the claim of Jaucian against the
estate will be ordered paid or any balance that may
be due to him.
16. Jaucian brought an action against Dayadante and
recovered a judgment against him, execution was

issued but unsatisfied because there was no property.

17. Jaucian brought another action upon the estate of
Rogero, averring that Dayadante was insolvent so he
renewed his prayer in his original petition. He
contends that Moirs April 13, 1914 Order had admitted
the claim.
18. Petition was opposed by Querol on the grounds that the
statement of the court re: admissibility of the claim was
mere dictum, and that his contingent claim was not
reduced to judgment.
19. CFI: refused to grant Jaucians petition.
ISSUE/S:
1.

WON the April 13, 1914 Order by Judge Moir was

binding
NO, it was not binding. It was merely a
suggestion, a dictum. So even if Jaucian
followed the suggestion, it was not final.
Therefore, the Order conferred no rights to
Jaucian to claim against Rogero.

2.

WON Rogero was solidarily bound in the obligation

YES. Even though Rogero was surety for
Dayadante, she was nevertheless bound jointly
and severally with him in the obligation.

On Rogeros Liability
5. Rogero was liable absolutely and unconditionally for
the full amount of the obligation without any right to
demand the exhaustion of the property of the principal
debtor previous to its payment. Her position so far as
the creditor was concerned was exactly the same as if
she had been the principal debtor.
6. Liability extends unconditionally to the entire amount
stated in the obligation. Where the debtor is liable in
solidum and without postponement of execution, the
liability is not contingent but absolute.
7. Jaucians was an absolute claim and the committee on
claims had a duty to have allowed it in full as such
against the estate of Rogero.
8. If the claim had been opportunely presented to the
committee for allowance and found to be a valid claim,
it should have been allowed, just as if the contract had
been with her alone.
9. This claim was an absolute claim. Such claims are
barred if not presented to the committee in time.
10. For this reason, the claim was properly rejected by the
court.
RULING:
The decision of the trial court denying Jaucians
petition was correct and must be affirmed.

RATIO:
On the April 13, 1914 Order
1. Moirs April 13, 1914 Order was not a final order. In
effect, it held that whatever rights Jaucian might have
against the estate of Rogero were subject to the
performance of a condition precedent his exhaustion
of this remedy against Dayadante. The court regarded
Daydante as the principal debtor and Rogero as a surety
liable only for such deficiency after exhaustion of the
assets of the principal coobligor.
2. The pivotal fact upon which the order was based was
the failure of the appellant to show that he had
exhausted his remedy against Daydante. The court
regarded this failure as a complete bar to the granting
of the petition that time.
3. The part of the opinion which contained statements of
what the court intended to do when the petition should
be renewed was not binding upon him or any other
judge.
4. The Order of April 13, 1914 required no action by the
administrator at that time, was not final, therefore was
not appealable. As such, no rights were conferred by
the said Order of April 13, 1914 and it did not preclude
the administrator from making opposition to the
petition of Jaucian when it was renewed.

Digest by Carmela Fojas