Bitanga Vs Pyramid Construction

BITANGA VS PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION
F: Pyramid Construction entered into an agreement with Macrogen Realty, of which Furthermore, Bitanga cannot contends that the demand was not delivered to him
Bitanga is the President, to construct for the latter the Shoppers Building because his address in the contract was the same address where the demand
Paranaque City. However, Macrogen Realty failed to settle billings. Bitanga, assured letter was served. He also did not submit any affidavit wherein he alleged that the
Pyramid that the outstanding account of Macrogen Realty would be paid. person who received the letter was not his employee.
Respondent suspended work on the construction because payment were again not
settled. Respondent instituted with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission Worthy of note as well is the Sheriffs return stating that the only property
(CIAC) a case for arbitration against Macrogen Realty seeking payment of unpaid of Macrogen Realty which he found was its deposit of P20,242.23 with the Planters
billings. Bank. The Pyramid was able to exhaust all remedies available upon them.
Pyramid and Macrogen Realty entered into a Compromise Agreement, Petitioner
guaranteed the obligations of Macrogen Realty under the Compromise Agreement by Article 2059(5) of the Civil Code thus finds application and precludes petitioner from
executing a Contract of Guarant in favor of respondent, by virtue of which he interposing the defense of excussion. We quote:
irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed the full and complete payment of the
principal amount of liability of Macrogen Realty in the sum of P6,000,000.00.
However, Macrogen failed to do so. Art. 2059. This excussion shall not take place:
The sheriff filed a return stating that he was unable to locate any property (5) If it may be presumed that an execution on the property of the principal
of Macrogen Realty, except its bank deposit of P20,242.33, with the Planters Bank. debtor would not result in the satisfaction of the obligation.
Pyramid a written demand on Bitanga, as guarantor to pay or to point out properties of
the Macrogen Realty to cover the obligation. It also made verbal demands on petitioner. As the Court of Appeals correctly ruled:
Yet, respondents demands were left unheeded.
Bitanga contends that benefit of excussion was still available to him as a guarantor Bitanga must be compelled to pay Pyramid.
because Pyramid failed to exhaust all legal remedies against Macrogen because it still
had uncollected credits with other people. Reason: Bitanga had not genuinely controverted the return made by
Sheriff, who affirmed that, after exerting diligent efforts, he was not
RTC: RTC, ordering BITANGA and Marilyn(wife) to pay Pyramid under the Contract of able to locate any property belonging to the Macrogen Realty, except
Guaranty P6,000,000.000 (less the bank deposit of Macrogen Realty with Planters for a bank deposit with the Planters Bank at Buendia, in the amount
Bank)
of P20,242.23. It is axiomatic that the liability of the guarantor arises
CA: Affirmed the decision of RTC with modification that the wife of Bitanga is not liable. when the insolvency or inability of the debtor to pay the amount of
Only Bitanga is liable. debt is proven by the return of the writ of execution that had not
been unsatisfied.
ISSUE: WON BITANGA is entitled to the benefit of excussion?
Held: No, Bitanga cannot avail himself of the benefit of excussion. WHEREFORE, RTC and CA decision AFFIRMED. Bitanga liable to pay Pyramid as
guarantor.
Art. 2060. In order that the guarantor may make use of the benefit
of excussion, he must set it up against the creditor upon the latters demand for
payment from him, and point out to the creditor available property of the debtor
within Philippine territory, sufficient to cover the amount of the debt.
It must be stressed that despite having been served a demand letter at his office,
petitioner still failed to point out to the respondent properties
of Macrogen Realty sufficient to cover its debt as required under Article 2060 of
the Civil Code. Such failure on petitioners part forecloses his right to set up the
defense of excussion.

Bitanga Vs Pyramid Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bitanga Vs Pyramid Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bitanga Vs Pyramid Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BITANGA VS PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION

You might also like