Agoncillo vs. Javier

A partial payment made by one joint (mancomunada) debtor does not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations with respect to the other joint debtors. Obligations are presumed conjoint (divided pro rata) unless expressly stipulated to be solidary.

The case involves a debt originally incurred by Rev. Anastasio C. Cruz. His testamentary heirs (the Alano brothers) executed a document acknowledging the debt and promising to pay it. The document also contained an alternative obligation: if they failed to pay the money, they would convey a specific house and lot to the creditor. After the death of one heir (Anastasio Alano), the creditor sought to recover the debt from his estate and from the other heirs personally.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas.
• The CFI ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
• Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

• In 1904, Anastasio Alano, Jose Alano, and Florencio Alano signed a document acknowledging a debt of P2,730.50 owed to Marcela Mariño.
• The document stated the debt was due within one year with 12% interest.
• It provided that if the debt was not paid, the debtors would convey a specific house and lot to the creditor. The attempt to create a formal mortgage on this property was invalid as it was never recorded.
• Only P200 was paid in 1908 by Anastasio Alano.
• Anastasio Alano died intestate in 1912. An estate proceeding was opened, a committee on claims was appointed, and notices to creditors were published. No claims were presented, and the proceeding was closed in 1915.
• In 1916, at the creditor's instance, the estate proceeding was reopened and a new administrator (Javier) was appointed.
• Plaintiffs then filed this complaint against the administrator of Anastasio's estate and against Jose and Florencio Alano personally.

• The document constituted a valid obligation to pay the debt or, alternatively, to convey the property.
• The partial payment by Anastasio Alano in 1908 interrupted the running of the statute of limitations for all debtors.
• The obligation was solidary because it originated from an inheritance, so the act of one debtor bound the others.

• The claim against Anastasio Alano's estate was barred because the creditor failed to present it to the committee on claims as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The action against Jose and Florencio Alano was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations.
• The partial payment by Anastasio did not interrupt prescription for them, as the obligation was merely joint, not solidary.
• The document did not create a valid mortgage.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the failure to present the claim to the committee on claims in the estate proceeding of Anastasio Alano bars the action against his administrator.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the partial payment by one joint debtor interrupts the running of the statute of limitations as to the other joint debtors.
  2. Whether the obligation in the document was joint or solidary.

• Procedural: Yes. The SC held that under Section 695 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the failure to present a claim to the committee on claims extinguishes it. The creditor's action against the estate of Anastasio Alano was therefore barred.
• Substantive:
  1. No. The SC ruled that the obligation was joint (mancomunada), not solidary. Under Article 1138 of the Civil Code, a joint obligation is divided into as many equal parts as there are debtors. Therefore, a partial payment or acknowledgment by one joint debtor does not interrupt prescription as to the others.
  2. The obligation was joint. The SC found no express stipulation that the obligation was solidary, as required by Article 1137 of the Civil Code. The fact that the debt originated from an inheritance did not automatically make it solidary, as there was no proof the original debtor died under the old Civil Code regime or that the heirs accepted the inheritance without benefit of inventory.

• Doctrine of Joint (Mancomunada) vs. Solidary Obligations — An obligation is presumed conjoint (divided pro rata among debtors) unless there is an express stipulation that it is solidary (each debtor liable for the whole). The effects of prescription, novation, or payment affect only the specific debtor involved, not the co-debtors.
• Bar of Claims Against Estates — Under Section 695 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a creditor's claim against an estate is barred if not presented to the committee on claims within the prescribed period. This bar is absolute and the claim cannot be enforced via an independent action against the administrator.
• Interruption of Prescription for Joint Debtors — For a joint obligation, an extrajudicial demand or a partial payment by one debtor does not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations as to the other debtors. The act must be by the debtor to be charged or by someone duly authorized.

• "The conjoint (pro rata) obligation is divided by operation of law among the non-solidary co-debtors. It is as though there were as many debts as there are persons bound. Hence it follows that if prescription is interrupted with respect to one of the debtors, it is not interrupted with respect to the others."
• "The defense of prescription interposed, particularly as regards Jose and Florencio Alano, is as indefensible from the standpoint of fair dealing and honesty as it is unassailable from the standpoint of legal technicality. However, the law, as we see it, is clear and it is our duty to enforce it."

• Estate of De Dios (24 Phil. Rep., 573) — Cited to support the absolute bar against claims not presented to the committee on claims in an estate proceeding.
• Pelaez vs. Abreu (26 Phil. Rep., 415) — Cited for the rule that an extrajudicial demand does not interrupt prescription; there must be a partial payment, written acknowledgment, or written promise to pay.
• Compañia General de Tabacos vs. Jeanjaquet (12 Phil. Rep., 195) — Cited to show that an unrecorded mortgage is invalid.
• Buard vs. Lemee, Syndic (12 Robinson's Reports, 243 - Louisiana) — Cited as persuasive authority that an acknowledgment by a joint debtor does not interrupt prescription as to the others.

• Civil Code, Article 1137 — "Obligations are presumed to be joint... In order that an obligation may be solidary, it must be expressly stipulated."
• Civil Code, Article 1138 — "If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations... it should not appear that the object is intended to be... solidary... the obligation shall be considered as joint."
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 695 — Requires claims against an estate to be presented to the committee on claims; failure to do so extinguishes the claim.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 43 — Establishes a ten-year statute of limitations for actions upon written contracts.

• Justice Malcolm dissented without a recorded opinion.