This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under a contract of guarantee, the guarantor binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. The guarantor who pays for a debtor, in turn, must be indemnified by the latter. However, the guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor and resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor. This is what is otherwise known as the benefit of excussion.[37] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| that there was forgery. Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.[53] | |||||