Denzon v. Veloso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bartolome Ch. Veloso was convicted of seduction and sentenced to imprisonment and to recognize and maintain the child born of his relations with Pascuala Denzon. After serving part of his sentence, he petitioned for a pardon from the Governor-General. The pardon was granted on the condition that Veloso provide a bond, approved by the court, for the maintenance and education of the child, Lourdes Denzon, until she reached majority. The defendant, Corazon Ch. Veloso, along with Pedro Rodriguez, executed a joint and several bond for P7,500 in favor of Pascuala Denzon, as sureties for Bartolome Ch. Veloso. Procedural History: The action was filed to recover P900, representing P30 monthly support from November 1910 to the filing of the complaint. The defense argued that Bartolome Ch. Veloso had been without property or funds since November 1910, rendering him unable to provide support, and that this condition fell under Article 152 of the Civil Code, which allows cessation of support obligations when the means of the obligor are reduced. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the sureties bound by the express terms of their undertaking, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Petition: The defendant-appellant contended that the impoverishment of the principal debtor, Bartolome Ch. Veloso, relieved the sureties from their obligation under Article 152 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the sureties are relieved from their obligation under the bond due to the impoverishment of the principal debtor. Whether the bond executed as a condition for a pardon is governed solely by the provisions of the Civil Code regarding support.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding the sureties liable under the bond. The Court ruled that the obligation enforced was not strictly the legal obligation of support under the Civil Code, but rather the obligation undertaken by the sureties in the bond executed as a condition for the Governor-General's pardon. The Governor-General had the power to impose any condition deemed advisable for the welfare of the convict and his offspring, and the bond's clear wording indicated the sureties' intention to bind themselves to ensure the child's care during minority, irrespective of the principal's financial condition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the sureties are relieved from their obligation due to the principal debtor's impoverishment: The Court held that the sureties were not relieved. The obligation in question stemmed from a bond executed to fulfill a condition set by the Governor-General for a pardon, not directly from the legal obligation of support under the Civil Code. The Governor-General possessed the authority to impose conditions for a pardon that went beyond the statutory requirements for support. The bond's explicit terms demonstrated the sureties' clear intention to guarantee the child's maintenance and education during her minority, regardless of Bartolome Ch. Veloso's financial circumstances. Therefore, the impoverishment of the principal did not extinguish the sureties' contractual undertaking. On the issue of whether the bond is governed solely by the Civil Code provisions on support: The Court clarified that the bond was not executed in pursuance of any provision of the Civil Code or any specific law mandating such a bond for maintenance. Instead, it was a voluntary undertaking by the sureties to satisfy a condition precedent to a pardon solicited by the principal. Consequently, the scope and enforceability of the bond were determined by the intention of the parties as expressed in the instrument itself, rather than by the limitations found in the Civil Code articles concerning support. The wording of the bond was deemed sufficient to bind the sureties to provide the stipulated support and maintenance, irrespective of the principal's financial capacity.
Main Doctrine
A surety bond executed as a condition for a pardon, guaranteeing the maintenance and education of a child, is enforceable against the sureties regardless of the principal's subsequent impoverishment, as the obligation stems from the express terms of the bond and the Governor-General's prerogative, not solely from the legal obligation of support under the Civil Code.