Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 698 views

    Simeon Sadaya v. Sevilla - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    1) In 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed a joint and several promissory note for P15,000 to a bank, with the full amount going to Varona. 2) In 1950, Sadaya paid the remaining balance of P4,850 owed to the bank. 3) When Sadaya demanded reimbursement from Varona, Varona failed to pay. Sadaya then sought to recover half the amount from Sevilla's estate, but the Court of Appeals denied this as Sadaya's payment to the bank was voluntary and there was no proof of Varona's insolvency.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Simeon Sadaya v. Sevilla - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    698 views1 page
    1) In 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed a joint and several promissory note for P15,000 to a bank, with the full amount going to Varona. 2) In 1950, Sadaya paid the remaining balance of P4,850 owed to the bank. 3) When Sadaya demanded reimbursement from Varona, Varona failed to pay. Sadaya then sought to recover half the amount from Sevilla's estate, but the Court of Appeals denied this as Sadaya's payment to the bank was voluntary and there was no proof of Varona's insolvency.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Simeon Sadaya v. Sevilla_digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed a joint and several promissory note for P15,000 to a bank, with the full amount going to Varona. 2) In 1950, Sadaya paid the remaining balance of P4,850 owed to the bank. 3) When Sadaya demanded reimbursement from Varona, Varona failed to pay. Sadaya then sought to recover half the amount from Sevilla's estate, but the Court of Appeals denied this as Sadaya's payment to the bank was voluntary and there was no proof of Varona's insolvency.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    698 views1 page

    Simeon Sadaya v. Sevilla - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    1) In 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed a joint and several promissory note for P15,000 to a bank, with the full amount going to Varona. 2) In 1950, Sadaya paid the remaining balance of P4,850 owed to the bank. 3) When Sadaya demanded reimbursement from Varona, Varona failed to pay. Sadaya then sought to recover half the amount from Sevilla's estate, but the Court of Appeals denied this as Sadaya's payment to the bank was voluntary and there was no proof of Varona's insolvency.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sayaya v.

    Sevilla FACTS: 1) On March 28, 1949, Victor Sevilla, Oscar Varona and Simeon Sadaya executed, jointly and severally, in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, or its order, a promissory note for P15,000.00 with interest at 8% per annum, payable on demand. 2) The entire, amount of P15,000.00, proceeds of the promissory note, was received from the bank by Oscar Varona alone. 3) Victor Sevilla and Simeon Sadaya signed the promissory note as co-makers only as a favor to Oscar Varona. 4) Payments were made on account. 5) As of June 15, 1950, the outstanding balance stood P4,850.00. 6) No payment thereafter made. 7) On October 6, 1952, the bank collected from Sadaya the foregoing balance which, together with interest, totalled P5,416.12. 8) Varona failed to reimburse Sadaya despite repeated demands. 9) Victor Sevilla died. 10) Intestate estate proceedings were started in the CFI Rizal. 11) The administrator 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". 12) On June 5, 1957, the RTC 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. 13) The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs decision, hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether petitioner Sadaya can ask the reimbursement of the 50% of P5,746.12 from the estate of the deceased Sevilla. RULING: NO. The SC held that surely enough, as amongst the three, the obligation of Varona and Sevilla to Sadaya who paid can not be joint and several. For, indeed, had payment been made by Oscar Varona, instead of Simeon Sadaya, Varona could not have had reason to seek reimbursement from either Sevilla or Sadaya, or both. After all, the proceeds of the loan went to Varona and the other two received nothing therefrom. All of the foregoing postulate the following rules: (1) A joint and several accommodation maker of a negotiable promissory note may demand from the principal debtor reimbursement for the amount that he paid to the payee; and (2) a joint and several accommodation maker who pays on the said promissory note may directly demand reimbursement from his co-accommodation maker without first directing his action against the principal debtor provided that (a) he made the payment by virtue of a judicial demand, or (b) a principal debtor is insolvent. The Court of Appeals found that Sadaya's payment to the bank "was made voluntarily and without any judicial demand," and that "there is an absolute absence of evidence showing that Varona is insolvent". This combination of fact and lack of fact epitomizes the fatal distance between payment by Sadaya and Sadaya's right to demand of Sevilla "the share which is proportionately owing from him."

    You might also like