Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Inciong Vs Court of Appeals

1) In 1983, Baldomero Inciong Jr. signed a promissory note along with Rene Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas for P50,000 to the Philippine Bank of Communications. They failed to pay on the due date of May 5, 1983. 2) In 1986, the bank filed a collection case against the three obligors. In 1987, the case against Pantanosas was dismissed upon the bank's motion. Only Inciong was served. 3) The lower court found Inciong solidarily liable to pay P50,000 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Inciong argued the dismissal of the cases against the other two obligors

Uploaded by

mcris101
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Inciong Vs Court of Appeals

1) In 1983, Baldomero Inciong Jr. signed a promissory note along with Rene Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas for P50,000 to the Philippine Bank of Communications. They failed to pay on the due date of May 5, 1983. 2) In 1986, the bank filed a collection case against the three obligors. In 1987, the case against Pantanosas was dismissed upon the bank's motion. Only Inciong was served. 3) The lower court found Inciong solidarily liable to pay P50,000 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Inciong argued the dismissal of the cases against the other two obligors

Uploaded by

mcris101
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

INCIONG VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96405, June 26, 1996


FACTS:
On February 3, 1983, petitioner Baldomero L. Inciong, Jr. together with Rene C.
Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas signed a promissory note in the amount of P50,
000.00 holding themselves jointly and severally liable to private respondent
Philippine Bank of Communications. The promissory note was due on May 5, 1983.
Said due date expired without the promissors having paid their obligation.
On November 14, 1983 and on June 8, 1984, private respondent sent petitioner
telegrams demanding payment thereof. On December 11, 1983, private respondent
also sent registered mail a final letter of demand to Rene C. Naybe. Since both
obligors did not respond to the demand made, private respondent filed on January
24, 1986 a complaint for collection of the sum of P50, 000.00 against the three (3)
obligors. On January 27, 1987, the lower court dismissed the case against defendant
Pantanosas as prayed by herein private respondent. Meanwhile, only the summons
addressed to petitioner was served for the reason that defendant Naybe had gone to
Saudi Arabia.
The lower court rendered its decision holding petitioner solidarily liable and to pay
herein respondent bank the amount of P50, 000.00 plus interest thereon. Petitioner
appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals. The respondent court, however,
affirmed the decision of the lower court. The petitioner moved for reconsideration,
which was later on denied by the respondent Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint against Naybe, the principal debtor,
and against Pantanosas, his co-maker, constituted a release of his obligation.
HELD:
The dismissal of the complaint against Naybe and Pantanosas did not constitute a
release of petitioners obligation, especially because the dismissal of the case
against Pantanosas was upon the motion of private respondent itself. Petitioner
signed the promissory note as a solidary co-maker and not as a guarantor. A solidary
or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire
obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. The
promissory note involved in this case expressly states that the three signatories
therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be
proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor
to determine against whom he will enforce collection
Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code, when there are two or more debtors in one and
the same obligation, the presumption is that the obligation is joint so that each of the
debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt. There is solidary liability
only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the
nature of the obligation so requires.

You might also like