Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 799 views

    Ronquillo v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous eNHo872
    This case involves a collection of money action filed by Antonio P. So against Ernesto V. Ronquillo and others for dishonored checks totaling P117,498.98. The parties entered a compromise agreement to reduce the total claim to P110,000 to be paid in two installments. Ronquillo and others failed to make the initial payment. So filed for execution, but Ronquillo argued the compromise agreement did not specify solidary liability. The Court held the obligors were solidarily liable based on the express terms of the compromise agreement that they would be "individually and jointly" liable for payment. This created a several obligation enforceable against any one of the obligors.

    Copyright:

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

    Ronquillo v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous eNHo872
    799 views2 pages
    This case involves a collection of money action filed by Antonio P. So against Ernesto V. Ronquillo and others for dishonored checks totaling P117,498.98. The parties entered a compromise agreement to reduce the total claim to P110,000 to be paid in two installments. Ronquillo and others failed to make the initial payment. So filed for execution, but Ronquillo argued the compromise agreement did not specify solidary liability. The Court held the obligors were solidarily liable based on the express terms of the compromise agreement that they would be "individually and jointly" liable for payment. This created a several obligation enforceable against any one of the obligors.

    Original Description:

    Ronquillo v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a collection of money action filed by Antonio P. So against Ernesto V. Ronquillo and others for dishonored checks totaling P117,498.98. The parties entered a compromise agreement to reduce the total claim to P110,000 to be paid in two installments. Ronquillo and others failed to make the initial payment. So filed for execution, but Ronquillo argued the compromise agreement did not specify solidary liability. The Court held the obligors were solidarily liable based on the express terms of the compromise agreement that they would be "individually and jointly" liable for payment. This created a several obligation enforceable against any one of the obligors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    799 views2 pages

    Ronquillo v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous eNHo872
    This case involves a collection of money action filed by Antonio P. So against Ernesto V. Ronquillo and others for dishonored checks totaling P117,498.98. The parties entered a compromise agreement to reduce the total claim to P110,000 to be paid in two installments. Ronquillo and others failed to make the initial payment. So filed for execution, but Ronquillo argued the compromise agreement did not specify solidary liability. The Court held the obligors were solidarily liable based on the express terms of the compromise agreement that they would be "individually and jointly" liable for payment. This created a several obligation enforceable against any one of the obligors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-55138 September 28, 1984

    ERNESTO V. RONQUILLO, petitioner,


    vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIO P. SO, respondents.

    FACTS:

    Antonio P. So filed an action for the collection of money against Ronquillo, Offshore
    Catertrade Inc., Johnny Tan and Pilar Tan. The amount of P117,498.98 sought to be collected
    represents the value of the checks issued by the latters in payment for foodstuffs delivered to
    and received by them. The said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank.

    A compromise agreement has been entered where So agrees to reduce its total claim to only
    P110,000 .00 and Ronquillo, et. al. agree to bind themselves to initially pay out of the total
    indebtedness of P110,000.00 the amount of P55,000.00 on or before December 24, 1979 and
    the balance of P55,000.00 to be paid individually and jointly.

    So filed a Motion for Execution on the failure of Ronquillo, et al. to make the initial payment
    of P55,000.00 on or before December 24, 1979 as provided in the Decision. Obligors
    Ronquillo and Pilar Tan tendered P13,750.00 each but was refused by So. Hence, the two
    instead deposited the said amount with the Clerk of Court. The other two obligors did not pay
    their shares.

    So again filed a motion which resulted to the issuance of a writ of execution for the
    satisfaction of the sum of P82,500.00 as against the properties of Ronquillo, et.al, "singly or
    jointly liable."

    However, Ronquillo raised the question of the validity of the order of execution when the
    lower court's decision based on the compromise agreement did not specifically state the
    liability of the four obligors to be solidary.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Ronquillo and other obligors are solidarily liable.

    HELD:

    Yes.

    Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not
    imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is
    bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. Then is a solidary liability only when
    the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires
    solidarity.

    Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligation to which the
    preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to
    be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors and debtors, the credits or debts
    being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the
    multiplicity of quits.

    Clearly then, by the express term of the compromise agreement and the decision based upon
    it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation "individually and jointly".

    The term "individually" has the same meaning as "collectively", "separately", "distinctively",
    respectively or "severally". An agreement to be "individually liable" undoubtedly creates a
    several obligation, and a "several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to
    perform the whole obligation.

    The obligation being described as "individually and jointly", the same is therefore
    enforceable against one of the numerous obligors.

    You might also like