Philippine National Bank v. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303
Concept:
Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or 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. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity
Facts:
· Special power of the attorney to mortgage real estate is limited to such authority and does not bind the grantor personally to other obligations contracted by the grantee
· The sugar crop loans were obtained by Maximo from the plaintiff bank under the power of the attorney, executed in his favor by his brothers and sisters to mortgage a 16-odd hectare parcel of land, jointly owned by all of them
· Valeriana the sister of Maximo, alone also executed in favor of her brother Maximo a special power of attorney to borrow money and mortgage any real estate owned by her.
· Maximo applied for two separate crop loans with the PNB, one in the amount of P15,000 but only P13,216.11 was extended by the PNB and the other for P23,000 but only P12,427.57 was extended by the PNB
· As security for the two loans, Maximo executed it in his own name in favor of PNB two chattel mortgages, guaranteed by the surety bonds for the full authorized amounts of loans executed by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.
· Plaintiff Bank filed the case on February 10,1961 against Defendant Maximo Sta. Maria and his six brothers and sisters and the Associated Insurancs & Suret Co., Inc. for the collection of unpaid balances of two sugar crop loans
· The Trial Court rendered judgement in favor of the PNB
· Maximo did not appeal but his siblings appealed and contended that they had given their brother Maximo the authority to borrow money but only to mortgage the real estate jointly owned by them and that if they are liable, the liability should not go beyond the value of the property which9 they had authorized to be given as security of the loans obtained by Maximo. They further contended that they did not benefit whatsoever from the loans.
Issue: W/N the siblings are only liable for the value of the land?
Held:
· Yes, except for Valeriana who issued a separate Special Power of Attorney authorizing Maximo to borrow money.
· In Bank of P. I. v. De Coster, "where in an instrumentpowers and duties are specified and defined, that all of such powers and duties are limited andconfined to thosewhich are specified and defined, and all other powers andduties are excluded.”
· In De Villa vs. Fabricante, where the power of attorneygiven to the husband by the wife was limited to a grant of authority to mortgage a parcel of land titled in the wife'sname, the wife may not be held liable for the payment of the mortgage debt contracted by the husband, as theauthority to mortgage does not carry with it the authorityto contract obligation.
· Maximo and Valeriana are the only ones liable for the loans and that the other siblings’ liability only correspond to real estate mortgage and the foreclosure and sale of mortgage.
· Maximo’s argument that "a mortgage is simply anaccessory contract, and that to effect the mortgage, aloan has to be secured" falls, far short of the mark.Maximo had indeed, secured the loan on his own accountand the defendants-appellants had authorized him tomortgage their respective undivided shares of the realproperty jointly owned by them as security for the loan.But that was the extent of their authority land consequentliability, to have the real property answer for the loan incase of non-payment.
· The outcome might be different if there had been anexpress ratification of the loans by defendants-appellantsor if it had been shown that they had been benefited bythe crop loans so as to put them in estoppel.
· Under the Art. 1207, Valeriana is only jointly liable with Maximo
