1

G.R. No. 34642 September 24, 1931 Severino vs Severino 56 Phil. 187 FABIOLA SEVERINO, accompan e! b" #er #$%ban! RI&AR'O VERGARA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. G(ILLER)O SEVERINO, E* AL., defendants. ENRI+(E E&,A(S, appellant. This action was instituted in the Court of First nstance of the Province of loilo !" Fa!iola Severino, with who# is $oined her hus!and %icardo &er'ara, for the purpose of recoverin' the su# of P(),))) fro# *uiller#o Severino and +nri,ue +chaus, the latter in the character of 'uarantor for the for#er. -pon hearin' he cause the trial court 'ave $ud'#ent in favor of the plaintiffs to recover the su# of P(),))) with lawful fro# .ove#!er 15, 1/(/, the date of the filin' of the co#plaint, with costs. 0ut it was declared that e1ecution of this $ud'#ent should issue first a'ainst the propert" of *uiller#o Severino, and if no propert" should !e found !elon'in' to said defendant sufficient to satisf" the $ud'#ent in whole or in part, e1ecution for the re#ainder should !e issued a'ainst the propert" of +nri,ue +chaus as 'uarantor. Fro# this $ud'#ent the defendant +chaus appealed, !ut his principal, *uiller#o Severino, did not. The plaintiff Fa!iola Severino is the reco'ni2ed natural dau'hter of 3elecio Severino, deceased, for#er resident of 4ccidental .e'ros. -pon the death of 3elecio Severino a nu#!er of "ears a'o, he left considera!le propert" and liti'ation ensued !etween his widow, Felicitas &illanueva, and Fa!iola Severino, on the one part, and other heirs of the deceased on the other part. n order to #a5e an end of this liti'ation a co#pro#ise was effected !" which *uiller#o Severino, a son of 3elecio Severino, too5 over the propert" pertainin' to the estate of his father at the sa#e ti#e a'reein' to pa" P1)),))) to Felicitas &illanueva and Fa!iola Severino. This su# of #one" was #ade pa"a!le, first, P6),))) in cash upon the e1ecution of the docu#ent of co#pro#ise, and the !alance in three several pa"#ents of P(),))) at the end of one "ear7 two "ears, and three "ears respectivel". To this contract the appellant +nri,ue +chaus affi1ed his na#e as 'uarantor. The first pa"#ent of P6),))) was #ade on 8ul" 11, 1/(6, the date when the contract of co#pro#ise was e1ecuted7 and of this a#ount the plaintiff Fa!iola Severino received the su# of

P1),))). 4f the re#ainin' P6),))), all as "et unpaid, Fa!iola Severino is entitled to the su# of P(),))). t appears that at the ti#e of the co#pro#ise a'ree#ent a!ove-#entioned was e1ecuted Fa!iola Severino had not "et !een $udiciall" reco'ni2ed as the natural dau'hter of 3elecio Severino, and it was stipulated that the last P(),))) correspondin' to Fa!iola and the last P5,))) correspondin' to Felicitas &illanueva should retained on deposit until the definite status of Fa!iola Severino as natural dau'hter of 3elecio Severino should !e esta!lished. The $udicial decree to this effect was entered in the Court of First nstance of 4ccidental .e'ros on 8une 16, 1/(5, and as the #one" which was conte#plated to !e held in suspense has never in fact !een paid to the parties entitled thereto, it results that the point respectin' the deposit referred to has ceased to !e of #o#ent. The proof shows that the #one" clai#ed in this action has never !een paid and is still owin' to the plaintiff7 and the onl" defense worth notin' in this decision is the assertion on the part of +nri,ue +chaus that he received nothin' for affi1in' his si'nature as 'uarantor to the contract which is the su!$ect of suit and that in effect the contract was lac5in' in consideration as to hi#. The point is not well ta5en. 9 'uarantor or suret" is !ound !" the sa#e consideration that #a5es the contract effective !etween the principal parties thereto. :P"le vs. 8ohnson, / Phil., (6/.; The co#pro#ise and dis#issal of a lawsuit is reco'ni2ed in law as a valua!le consideration7 and the dis#issal of the action which Felicitas &illanueva and Fa!iola Severino had instituted a'ainst *uiller#o Severino was an ade,uate consideration to support the pro#ise on the part of *uiller#o Severino to pa" the su# of #one" stipulated in the contract which is the su!$ect of this action. The pro#ise of the appellant +chaus as 'uarantor therefore !indin'. t is never necessar" that the 'uarantor or suret" should receive an" part of the !enefit, if such there !e, accruin' to his principal. 0ut the true consideration of this contract was the detri#ent suffered !" the plaintiffs in the for#er action in dis#issin' that proceedin', and it is i##aterial that no !enefit #a" have accrued either to the principal or his 'uarantor. The $ud'#ent appealed fro# is in all respects correct, and the sa#e will !e affir#ed, with costs a'ainst the appellant.