Case Summary
(Estate of Victor Sevilla v. Sevilla, G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967)
Negotiable Instrument Involved: Promissory Note
Petitioner: Simeon Sadaya
Respondent: Francisco Sevilla
Petitioned for: Intestate estate of Victor Sevilla as reimbursement
Case:
On March 28, 1949, a promissory note was executed jointly and severally by Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona
and Simeon Sadaya in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands for the sum of Php 15,000.00 with
interest at 8℅ per annum, payable on demand. Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya act as accomodation
parties for Varona while the latter received the whole amount.
On October 6, 1952, the bank collected from Sadaya the outstanding balance which totalled Php
5,416.12 and Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite of repeated demands. Sadaya filed a creditor's
claim to his co-guarantor. But Victor Sevilla died so Intestate estate proceedings were started in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Special Proceeding No. 1518. Francisco Sevilla was named administrator,
where he resisted the claim upon the averment that the deceased Victor Sevilla "did not receive any
amount as consideration for the promissory note," but signed it only "as surety for Oscar Varona".
On June 5, 1957, the trial court issued an order admitting the claim of Simeon Sadaya in the amount of
P5,746.12, and directing the administrator to pay the same from any available funds belonging to the
estate of the deceased Victor Sevilla.
The motion to reconsider having been overruled, the administrator appealed.The Court of Appeals, in a
decision promulgated on July, 15, 1960, voted to set aside the order appealed from and to disapprove
and disallow "appellee's claim of P5,746.12 against the intestate estate."
The case is now before this Court on certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Sadaya's brief seeks reversal of the appellate court's decision and prays that his claim "in the amount of
50% of P5,746.12, or P2,873.06, against the intestate estate of the deceased Victor Sevilla," be
approved.
Underlying Principle:
On principle, a solidary accommodation maker — who made payment — has the right to contribution,
from his co-accommodation maker, in the absence of agreement to the contrary between them, and
subject to conditions imposed by law. This right springs from an implied promise between the
