Jauclan vs Querol 38 phil 978

Facts:
Lino Dayandante and Hermenegilda Rogero acknowledged themselves to be indebted to Roman
Jaucian "jointly and severally".

Rogero signed the document in the capacity of surety for Dayandante, but the instrument showed
that both debtors bound themselves jointly and severally to the creditor. There was nothing in the
terms of the obligation itself to show that the relation between the two debtors was that of
principal and surety.

Rogero sued Jaucian for fraud. But in his answer, Jaucian asked for judgment against the Rogero
for the amount due upon the obligation. The court ruled in favor of Jaucian.

While the case was pending, Rogero died and her estate was substituted as plaintiff. Meanwhile,
the Supreme Court ruled that the document was valid and Rogero was a surety of the debtor.

Jaucian filed a claim against the estate of Rogero. Francisco Querol, the administrator of
Rogero's estate, demanded a judgment from the court of his claim against Dayandante that he is
indeed insolvent and that Jaucian exhausted all means to collect from the principal debtor.

Issues: whether or not the surety solidary liable with the principal debtor? May the creditor sue a
"surety" without exhausting all means against the primary debtor?

Ruling: Yes. Rogero, though a surety for Dayandante, was nevertheless bound jointly and
severally with him in the obligation.

Article 1822 of the Civil Code provides:

By security a person binds himself to pay or perform for a third person in case the latter should
fail to do so.

Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:

A creditor may sue any of the joint and several debtors or all of them simultaneously. The claims
instituted against one shall not be an obstacle for those that may be later presented against the
others, as long as it does not appear that the debt has been collected in full.