Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 684 views

    Luzon-Surety-Co-vs-de-Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    1) Ladislao Chavez took out a crop loan from PNB and Luzon Surety Co. acted as surety. Vicente Garcia signed an indemnity agreement making himself liable to indemnify Luzon Surety for any losses. 2) PNB sued Chavez and Luzon Surety to recover unpaid interest and fees. Luzon Surety then filed a third-party complaint against Chavez, Garcia, and another. 3) The court ordered Chavez and Luzon Surety to pay PNB, and the third-party defendants to pay Luzon Surety. Luzon Surety attempted to recover from Garcia by garnishing the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Luzon-Surety-Co-vs-de-Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    684 views1 page
    1) Ladislao Chavez took out a crop loan from PNB and Luzon Surety Co. acted as surety. Vicente Garcia signed an indemnity agreement making himself liable to indemnify Luzon Surety for any losses. 2) PNB sued Chavez and Luzon Surety to recover unpaid interest and fees. Luzon Surety then filed a third-party complaint against Chavez, Garcia, and another. 3) The court ordered Chavez and Luzon Surety to pay PNB, and the third-party defendants to pay Luzon Surety. Luzon Surety attempted to recover from Garcia by garnishing the

    Original Title

    6. Luzon-Surety-Co-vs-de-Garcia.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ladislao Chavez took out a crop loan from PNB and Luzon Surety Co. acted as surety. Vicente Garcia signed an indemnity agreement making himself liable to indemnify Luzon Surety for any losses. 2) PNB sued Chavez and Luzon Surety to recover unpaid interest and fees. Luzon Surety then filed a third-party complaint against Chavez, Garcia, and another. 3) The court ordered Chavez and Luzon Surety to pay PNB, and the third-party defendants to pay Luzon Surety. Luzon Surety attempted to recover from Garcia by garnishing the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    684 views1 page

    Luzon-Surety-Co-vs-de-Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    1) Ladislao Chavez took out a crop loan from PNB and Luzon Surety Co. acted as surety. Vicente Garcia signed an indemnity agreement making himself liable to indemnify Luzon Surety for any losses. 2) PNB sued Chavez and Luzon Surety to recover unpaid interest and fees. Luzon Surety then filed a third-party complaint against Chavez, Garcia, and another. 3) The court ordered Chavez and Luzon Surety to pay PNB, and the third-party defendants to pay Luzon Surety. Luzon Surety attempted to recover from Garcia by garnishing the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LUZON SURETY CO., INC. vs.

    JOSEFA AGUIRRE DE GARCIA, VICENTE GARCIA and


    the FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. L-25659 October 31, 1969

    Facts:

    1) Ladislao Chavez, principal, and petitioner Luzon Surety Co. Inc., executed a surety bond in
    favor of PNB Victorias Branch to guaranty a crop loan granted by the latter to Chavez inthe sum
    of PhP9,000.
    2) Vicente Garcia, together with Ladislao Chavez and Ramon Lacson, as guarantors, signed an
    indemnity agreement binding themselves solidarily liable to indemnify Luzon Surety Co. Inc.
    against any and all damages, costs and and other expenses which the petitioner may sustain or
    incur in consequence of having become guarantor upon said bond, to pay interest and
    attorney's fees related to the loan.
    3) On April 27, 1956, PNB filed a complaint against Ladislao Chavez and Luzon Surety Co. to
    recover the amount of PhP4,577.95, in interest, attorney’s fees and other costs.
    4) On August 8, 1957, Luzon Surety Co. instituted a third party complaint against Chavez, Lacson
    and Garcia.
    5) On September 17, 1958, a judgment was rendered ordering Chavez and Luzon Surety Co. to
    pay PNB in solidarity. The same decision likewise ordered the third party defendants Chavez,
    Garcia and Lacson to pay Luzon Surety Co. the amount to be paid to PNB.
    6) On July 30, 1960, a writ of execution was issued against Garcia to satisfy the claim of the
    petitioner. A writ of garnishment was soon issued levying and garnishing the sugar quedans of
    the Garcia spouses from their sugar plantation.
    7) Spouses Garcia filed a suit for injunction and the trial court ruled in favor of them.

    Issue:
    WON the Conjugal Property of Gains could be liable on an indemnity agreement executed by
    the husband to accommodate a third party in favour of a surety agreement.

    Held:
    No.
    Art. 161. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
    (1) All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal
    partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases where
    she may legally bind the partnership;
    (2) Arrears or income due, during the marriage, from obligations which constitute a
    charge upon property of either spouse or of the partnership;
    (3) Minor repairs or for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate
    property of either the husband or the wife; major repairs shall not be charged to the
    partnership;
    (4) Major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;
    (5) The maintenance of the family and the education of the children of
    both husband and wife, and of legitimate children of one of the spouses;
    (6) Expenses to permit the spouses to complete a professional, vocational or other
    course.
    In the most categorical language, a conjugal partnership under Art. 161 is liable only for
    such "debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal
    partnership." There must be the requisite showing then of some advantage which
    clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses. While Garcia by thus signing the agreement may
    be said to enhance his reputation, such benefit, even if hypothetically accepted, is too
    remote and fanciful to come within the express terms of the provision. Its language is clear;
    it does not admit of doubt. No process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to. It
    peremptorily calls for application.

    You might also like