Astro Electronics v Philguarantee Facts: Astro made several loans to Philtrust amounting to P3,000,000.

00 with interest and secured by three promissory notes dated Dec 14, 1981 for P600,000.00, Dec 14, 1981 for P400,000.00 and Aug 27, 1981 for P2,000,000.00. In each of PN Roxas signed twice, as President of Astro and in his personal capacity. Aside from the PNs, Roxas also signed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in favor of Philtrust Bank, as President of Astro and as surety. Thereafter, Philguarantee, with the consent of Astro, guaranteed in favor of Philtrust the payment of 70% of Astros loan subject to the condition that upon payment by Philguanrantee of said amount, it shall be proportionally subrogated to the rights of Philtrust against Astro. Astro failed to pay its loan obligations, despite demands, so Philguarantee paid 70% of the guaranteed loan to Philtrust. Subsequently, Philguarantee filed against Astro and Roxas a complaint for sum of money. Roxas then disclaimed any liability on the instruments, alleging, that he merely signed the same in blank and the phrases in his personal capacity and in his official capacity were fraudulently inserted without his knowledge. RTC ruled in favor of Philguarantee and ordered that Roxas & Astro to pay , solidarily Philgurantee P3,621.187.52 which include interest and penalty charges; CA affirmed hence this certiorari. Issue/Held: W/N Roxas should be solidarily liable with Astro for the sum awarded by RTC to Philguarantee? YES Ratio: The 3 PN provide: I/We jointly, severally and solidarily, promise to pay to PHILTRUST BANK or order...this instrument when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidarily liable. Also, the phrase joint and several binds the makers jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit having signed under such terms, Roxas assumed the solidary liability of a debtor and Philtrust Bank may choose to enforce the notes against him alone or jointly with Astro. Roxas may not deny his liability by simply claiming that the phrases in his personal capacity and in his official capacity was inserted without his knowledge. Being the President of Astro it is reasonably presumed that he takes care of his concerns. It devolves upon him to ovecome the presumptions. Aside from his self-serving allegations, Roxas failed to prove the truth of such allegations nor did he explained why he signed the PN twice so presumptions prevail over his claims. Notably he executed these PN on 2 diff dates and also executed a continuing suretyship agreement which was also signed twice by Roxas. Lastly, Philguarantee has all the right to proceed against petitioner, it is subrogated to the rights of Philtrust to demand for and collect payment from both Roxas and Astro since it already paid 70% of petitioners loan obligation. In compliance with its contract of Guarantee in favor of Philtrust. Roxas acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation1 to take place because the instant case is one of the legal

1 Subrogation is the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third person, who substitutes him in all his rights. It may either be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation is that which takes place without agreement but by operation of law because of certain acts. Instances of legal subrogation are those provided in Article 1302 of the Civil Code. Conventional subrogation, on the other hand, is that which takes place by agreement of the parties.

subrogation that occurs by operation of law, and without need of the debtors knowledge. Moreover, Philguarantee, as guarantor, became the transferee of all the rights of Philtrust as against Roxas and Astro because the guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor.