Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PACIONARIA C. BAYLON v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 185945 2012-12-05	FIDELIZA J. AGLIBOT v. INGERSOL L. SANTIA REYES, J.
It is settled that the liability of the guarantor is only subsidiary, and all the properties of the principal debtor, the PLCC in this case, must first be exhausted before the guarantor may be held answerable for the debt.[13] Thus, the creditor may hold the guarantor liable only after judgment has been obtained against the principal debtor and the latter is unable to pay, "for obviously the 'exhaustion of the principal's property' the benefit of which the guarantor claims cannot even begin to take place before judgment has been obtained."[14] This rule is contained in Article 2062[15] of the Civil Code, which provides that the action brought by the creditor must be filed against the principal debtor alone, except in some instances mentioned in Article 2059[16] when the action may be brought against both the guarantor and the principal debtor.
	GR NO. 151060 2005-08-31	JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE EXPORT TINGA, J.
It is clear that excussion may only be invoked after legal remedies against the principal debtor have been expanded. Thus, it was held that the creditor must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor before assuming to run after the alleged guarantor, "for obviously the 'exhaustion of the principal's property' cannot even begin to take place before judgment has been obtained."[37] The law imposes conditions precedent for the invocation of the defense. Thus, in order that the guarantor may make use of the benefit of excussion, he must set it up against the creditor upon the latter's demand for payment and point out to the creditor available property of the debtor within the Philippines sufficient to cover the amount of the debt.[38]
	GR No. 123213 2001-11-15	NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
As a general rule, factual findings of the trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and are not reviewed by this Court.[16] However, the rule admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the appellate court overlooked or misapprehended certain facts which when properly considered would lead to a different result.[17]