3. SEVERINO v.

SEVERINO
G.R. No. 34642
September 24, 1931
FACTS:
Plaintiff Fabiola Severino was the recognized natural daughter of Melecio Severino,
deceased, and Felicitas Villanueva was Melecios widow. Upon his death, Melecio left property
and litigation ensued between Felicitas, Fabiola and other heirs of the deceased.
The parties entered into a compromise, where Guillermo Severino, a son of Melecio, took
over the property of the estate of his father and agreed to pay P100,000 to Felicitas and Fabiola.
Guillermo paid P40,000 upon the execution of the document of compromise, and the balance in
three several payments of P20,000 each. Enrique Echaus agreed to be the guarantor of this
contract.
Fabiola was still entitled to receive a total of P30,000. But, at the time the compromise
agreement was executed, Fabiola had not yet been judicially recognized as the natural daughter
of Melecio. It was stipulated that the last P20,000 for Fabiola and the last P5,000 for Felicitas
should be retained on deposit until the definite status of Fabiola as natural daughter of Melecio
should be established.
The money claimed in this action, which was supposed to be paid to the parties, had
never been paid to them.
Fabiola and her husband Ricardo Vergara filed a case in the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo to recover P20,000 from Guillermo and Echaus. The trial court ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs, but this judgment should be first executed against the property of Guillermo, and if
Guillermos property is insufficient, the execution should be issued against Echaus property.
Only Echaus appealed, claiming that he received nothing for being the guarantor to the
contract, and that, in effect, the contract was lacking in consideration as to him, thus not binding.
ISSUE: Whether or not the promise of Echaus as guarantor was not binding, for he received
nothing as consideration from the contract.
HELD: NO. A guarantor or surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the contract
effective between the principal parties thereto. The compromise and dismissal of a lawsuit is
recognized in law as a valuable consideration;
The dismissal of the action, which Felicitas and Fabiola had instituted against Guillermo,
was an adequate consideration to support the promise on the part of Guillermo to pay the amount
stipulated in the contract which is the subject of this action. The promise of Echaus as guarantor
was therefore binding.
It is not necessary that the guarantor or surety should receive any part of the benefit, if
such there be, accruing to his principal. The true consideration of this contract was the detriment
suffered by the plaintiffs in the former action in dismissing that proceeding, and it is immaterial
that no benefit may have accrued either to the principal or his guarantor.
The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.