G.R. No. L-46984




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-46984 January 20, 1940 FRANCISCA MERCADO and ANASTACIO LISING, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG and ROMAN PINEDA, defendants. FRANCISCO LORENZO and CONCEPCION HIZON, sureties-appellants. Eduardo Gutierrez David for appellants. Lagman and Santos for appellees. LAUREL, J.: This is an appeal interposed by sureties Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga holding them liable on their redelivery bond for the obligations of their co-defendants Francisco Macapayag and Roman Pineda. It appears that on February 7, 1936, plaintiffs Francisca Mercado and Anastacio Macapayag and Roman Pineda for the manual delivery of 370 cavanes of palay in the possession of the latter valued at P1,184 at P3.20 a cavan. Following the filing of the required bond by said plaintiffs, a warrant of seizure was issued by the court and served and returned by the provincial sheriff of Pampanga. Defendants, however, claimed part of the palay seized by the sheriff amounting to 142 cavanes, 12 gantas and 4½ chupas and to secure their return to the plaintiffs, filed a redelivery bond on February 11, 1936, more particularly entitled "Fianza para la devolucion de bienes secuestrados" and executed by the herein sureties-appellants, Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon, by the terms of which they bound themselves "Mancomunada y solidariamente a favor de los demandantes en la cantidad de P912.04 que es doble del valor de dichos bienes segun la declaration jurada de la demandante, Franciscxa Mercado, si fuera declarando por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a al posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad que por sentencia firme recobren contra los demandados." On September 3, 1936, the defendants presented an amended answer to the complaint, alleging as a special defense that they were tenants of the plaintiffs Francisca Mercado for sometime prior and up to February 5, 1936 and that as such tenants they were in the legal possession of the palay in question, pending liquidation between them and the plaintiffs. When the case was called for hearing on November 26, 1937, the parties submitted to the court a stipulation of facts, in accordance with which the lower court rendered the following judgment: De acuerdo con el convenio de las partes en corte abierta, el Juzgado condena al demandado Francisco macapayag a pagar a la demandante 17 cavanes de paly ordinario, mas la suma de {P44.33; y al demandado Roman Pineda a pagar a la misma demndante 18 cavanes de paly ordinario, mas 20 centimos por cada cavan que es, como se ha dicho, la diferencia entre el precio de dicha clase de palay y el 'dinalaga', mas la suma de P37.55, pago que deberia hacerse dentro del plazo de 30 dias a contar desde hoy. Judgment having become final, plaintiffs asked for execution, but sheriff's return showed that there was no more palay or any other property in the possession of the defendants and judgment therefore remained unsatisfied. Hence, on January 26, 1938, plaintiffs petitioned for execution of judgment against the redelivery bond. To this petition, sureties Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon presented their opposition. But the lower court, on February 14, 1938, issued the following order: Apareciendo muy clara la obligacion contrada en la fianza de los fisdores en el sentido de que responden del pago del importe de la sentencia contra los demandados, se desestima la oposicion de ejecucion contra los mismos. On appeal to this court, sureties-appellants contend that they cannot held liable on their redelivery bond because (1) the decision of the lower court which was based on the agreement of the parties modified the obligation and, therefore, discharged the sureties from their undertaking; (2) the amount of palay mentioned in the decision does not refer to the palay seized; and (3) the sums of money appearing in said decision do not constitute the value of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The only issue, therefore, raised in the case at bar revolves around the question of liability of the sureties on their delivery bond shows unmistakably that the sureties bound themselves to answer solidarily for the obligation of the defendants to the plaintiffs in the amount of P912.04 "si fuera declarando por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a la posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad por sentencia firme recobtren contra los fdemandados." In other words, the liability of the sureties was fixed and conditioned on the finality of the judgment rendered regardless of whether the decision was based on the consent of the parties or on the merits. A judgment entered on a stipulation is nonetheless a judgment of the court because consented to by parties. In the absence of fraud and collusion we see no good reason why sureties on a replevin bond should not be found by a judgment thus obtained. (Manila Railroad Co., vs. Arzaron, 20 Phil., 452; Donovan vs. Etna Indemn. Co., 10 Cal., A 723, 733, 103 P., 365.) Had it not been for the delivery bond of sureties the lower court would not have lifted the warrant of seizure as to the portion of the palay in the possession of the defendant and the palay could not have been disposed of by them. Having undertaken to substitute the obligation of the defendants to deliver the palay retained by the latter in case the court were declare by final judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the same, the sureties should answer on their redelivery bond. The judgment of the court is affirmed, with costs against the sureties-appellants. Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation