This  is an action brought  by the municipality of Gasan of the Province of Marinduque, against Miguel  Marasigan, Angel  R. Sevilla and  Gonzalo L. Luna, to recover from them the sum  of P3,780, alleging that it forms a part of the  license  fees which  Miguel  Marasigan  failed  to pay for the privilege granted him of gathering whitefish spawn (semillas de bangus)  in the jurisdictional waters of  the plaintiff municipality during the period from  January 1, 1931, to December 31 of said year.

The Court of First Instance of Marinduque, which tried the  case, rendered a decision adverse  to the defendants, sentencing them to  pay jointly to the  plaintiff said sum of P3,780 with legal interest  thereon from August 19, 1932, until fully paid, plus  the costs  of the suit.   From said judgment, the  defendants appealed to  this court, attributing to the lower court the five alleged errors relied upon in their brief, as follows:

"I. The court a  quo erred in holding and maintaining that,  notwithstanding the fact  that  resolution No. 161 of the municipal council of Gasan which gave rise to the contract and bond,  Exhibits  A and B, respectively, of the complaint, has been declared null and void by the  provincial board and by the Executive Bureau, the  contract and bond in question are valid and, consequently, enforceable on the ground that  said resolution No. 161 is within or had been adopted within the powers of the council.

"II. The court a quo erred in holding that even granting that the contract Exhibit A is not valid de jure, it  is a de facto contract as to the defendants, particularly the defendant-grantee Miguel Marasigan.

"III. The court a quo erred in not absolving the  defendants Angel R.  Sevilla  and Gonzalo L.  Luna, sureties of the defendant Miguel Marasigan, notwithstanding the fact that resolution No. 161, by  virtue of which  said  defendants subscribed the bond  Exhibit B of the  complaint, had been  declared null  and void  by the provincial board and by the Executive Bureau.

"IV. The court a quo erred in holding that the  herein defendant Miguel Marasigan had taken advantage  of the privilege to catch or gather  whitefish spawn  in the jurisdictional waters of the municipality of Gasan, during the period from January 1, to  December 31,  1931, notwithstanding the fact that counsel for the plaintiff municipality failed to present evidence, either documentary or oral, to justify said fact.

"V.  The court a quo erred in not absolving each and every one of the herein defendants from the  complaint,  and in not ordering the plaintiff municipality  to return  to the defendant  Miguel  Marasigan the sums of four hundred twenty pesos  (P420)  "and  eight  hundred  forty pesos (P840) deposited with said plaintiff, with interest thereon from the respective dates of their deposit,  until their return."nona

The  case was tried by the lower court  with no other evidence than the admissions made by the parties in the stipulation of facts mentioned in the body of the decision, the pertinent parts of which will be discilssed later.  Said stipulation and the attached papers forming a part thereof enables this court to narrate the material facts of the case, as follows:

The plaintiff-appellee municipality, on December 9, 1930, put up at auction the privilege of gathering whitefish spawn in its jurisdictional waters for the period of one year from January 1, 1931.  Two bidders, Graciano  Napa and  Miguel Marasigan, appeared at the  auction.  Both attached to their respective bids the  certificate of not being behind in the payment of any tax,  issued by the municipal treasurer of Gasan, Marinduque, as required by the provisions of resolution  No.  42, series  of 1930, of the  council of  said municipality.   Graciano Napa proposed to accept the privilege by paying P5,000  therefor,  and  Miguel  Marasigan proposed to do likewise, but  by paying only  P4,200.

The council of  the plaintiff-appellee municipality, in its resolution  No. 161 (Exhibit 1) of  December  11, 1930, rejected Graciano Napa's bid and accepted that  of the appellant Miguel Marasigan,  granting and  selling  to  the latter the privilege put up at auction for the sum of P4,200, payable quarterly in advance at the rate of P1,050 a quarter (Exhibit A).  To secure his compliance with the terms of the contract which was immediately formalized by him and the plaintiff, and pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of resolution  No. 128,  series of 1925, of the council of said plaintiff, Miguel Marasigan  filed the bond, Exhibit B, subscribed on December 15, 1930, by the defendants-appellants Angel R. Sevilla and Gonzalo L. Luna, who bound themselves in said document to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P8,400, if Miguel Marasigan failed to deposit one-fourth of P4,200 quarterly in advance in the municipal treasury of Gasan, in violation of the terms  of the contract executed and entered into by him and the plaintiff on December 11, 1930 (Exhibit A), for the compliance with which they  became sureties.

Before the plaintiff municipality and Miguel  Marasigan entered into their contract, and also before the latter's sureties executed the above-stated bond, Graciano Napa, whose bid was rejected for the  reason that he  had not attached thereto the certificate that he is not behind in the payment of any tax which he should have obtained from  the municipal treasurer of Lemery, his native town,  forwarded a protest (Exhibit 4)  to the provincial board,  which protest was later indorsed by said  provincial board to the Chief of the Executive Bureau,  alleging that the plaintiff municipality violated  the  provisions of section 2323 of the Administrative Code in rejecting his bid.

The provincial board,  passing  upon  Graciano  Napa's protest and acting under  the authority which, in its opinion, was granted to it by section 2233 of the Administrative Code, held that resolution  No. 161, series of 1930, by virtue of which the municipal  council of Gasan rejected Graciano Napa's  bid  and accepted  that of  Miguel Marasigan, notwithstanding the fact  that  the latter offered to pay less, was invalid, and suggested  that  the privilege should be awarded to Graciano Napa who, in its opinion, appeared to be the highest bidder in accordance with the provisions of sections 2323 and 2319 of the Administrative  Code (Exhibit 9).  The Executive Bureau, concurring with  the provincial board's points of view, declared, in turn, that  the concession made to Marasigan was illegal in view of the  fact that Graciano Napa was the highest bidder (Exhibit 13).

The plaintiff municipality, through its  municipal council, exerted efforts to obtain the reconsideration of the decisions of the provincial board of  Marinduque and of the Executive Bureau but, as these two  entities  maintained their decisions  (Exhibits 14, 15,  16,  17 and 18), it  decided, in its resolution No. 11, series of 1931 (Exhibit 19), to award the privilege of gathering whitefish spawn within its waters to Graciano  Napa, giving him a period of six days,  which was later extended to seven days, from January 8, 1931 (Exhibit 19-A), to deposit the sum of P500, equivalent to 10 per cent of his bid of P5,000, with the municipal treasurer of Gasan, so  as to comply with the (Provisions of section 8  of the  conditions of the public auction at  which he was a bidder,  warning him that if he failed to  do so, the contract entered into by the plaintiff, through its president,  and the appellant  Miguel Marasigan (Exhibit A), would  automatically take effect.  Graciano Napa not only failed to make the deposit required by the plaintiff in its two above-stated resolutions Nos. 11 and 12, series of 1931 (Exhibits 19 and 19-A), but he formally declared, through his duly authorized representative, that he yielded the privilege granted him to Miguel  Marasigan or to any  other person selected by the municipal authorities (Exhibit 20).

One day later, or on January 15, 1931, the president of the plaintiff-appellee  municipality  sent the letter Exhibit 21 to Miguel Marasigan, which reads:

"Sir:

"By virtue of Res. No.  11, c. s.,  as  amended by Res. No. 12, same series, and the communication of Mr. J. Zaguirre dated January  14, 1931,  copy of which is hereto attached, you are hereby advised that the contract entered into  between you and the municipality of Gasan for the tease of the bangus fishery privilege for the year 1931 becomes effective on January 14, 1931, to run until December 31,  1931.

"You are hereby requested to appear before the session of the Municipal  Council  to be held at the office of the undersigned tomorrow, January 16,  1931, bringing with yourself the contract and bond executed in  your favor for ratification.

"You are further informed that you are given 10 days from the date hereof, within which time you are to pay the amount of P1,050, as per tax corresponding to the first quarter, 1931."

Prior to this, but after the adoption by the municipal council of Gasan of its resolution No. 163 (Exhibit 7) on December 16, 1930, and two  days before the provincial board declared said council's resolutions Nos. 161 and 163 invalid, the  president of the plaintiff-appellee municipality notified the appellant Miguel Marasigan that the contract whereby he was granted the privilege of gathering white-fish  spawn  during the year 1931, upon his  offer to pay P4,200 a year therefor, was suspended and that he should consider it ineffective in the meantime in view of the fact that the question whether he (Miguel Marasigan)  or Graciano Napa was the highest  bidder still remained undecided by the provincial board of Marinduque and by the Executive Bureau.  The English translation of the letter sent by the municipal president to Miguel Marasigan, which was written in Tagalog  (Exhibit 8), reads:

"Sir:

"In view of the fact  that the  whitefish (bangus) case has not yet been decided or determined by the provincial board and  is still pending action to date, and in view of the instructions given me by the representative of the Executive Bureau,  Mr. Jose Zaguirre, I beg to inform you, with due respect,  that you  should refrain from carrying out and giving efficacy to the contract signed by me in the name of the  municipality,  relative  to  the privilege  of gathering whitefish in your favor, from this date until further notice, because this case is still pending action."

Knowing  the above-stated facts, let us now turn to the consideration of the alleged errors attributed to the lower court by the appellants.

The first and third errors should be considered jointly on account of the close relation existing  between them.  The determination of one depends upon that of the other.

This court believes  that  there is no necessity of even discussing the first error because the plaintiff itself accepted the conclusions  and decision of the provincial board and of the Executive Bureau, so much so that in its resolution No. 11, series of 1931, it thereafter considered Graciano Napa as the highest  bidder, going to the extent of requiring him, as it in fact required him, to make the deposit of P500 prescribed  by the conditions  of the auction sale in which he had intervened, and granting him a period of seven days to comply with said  requirement  (Exhibits 19 and 19-A).   Furthermore, when the plaintiff  received Graciano Napa's notice informing it that he ceded the privilege just granted him to appellant Miguel Marasigan or to any  other person that it  might choose, said  plaintiff, through its municipal president, required Miguel Marasigan to appear before its  municipal  council to  present  his formerly prepared contract as well as  his bond in order that both documents might be ratified  (Exhibit 21).  It should be added to the foregoing that  on December  18, 1930, the plaintiff, also through its municipal president, notified appellant Marasigan that his contract should, in the meantime, be considered ineffectual and  that he should do nothing to put it in execution because the case was still  undecided by the provincial  board and  by the Executive Bureau  (Exhibit 8).  It is clear that it may be  logically inferred from these facts  that the contract regarding fishing privilege entered into between the plaintiff and appellant Marasigan on December 11, 1930  (Exhibit A), not only  was not consummated but was  cancelled.  Consequently, it  now appears useless and futile to discuss whether or not resolution No.  161 (Exhibit 1)  is valid and  legal.   In  either case, it is a fact that said contract ceased to have life or force to bind each of  the  contracting parties.  It  ceased  to  be valid from the time it was  cancelled and this being so, neither the appellant Marasigan  nor his sureties or the other appellants were bound to comply, with  the terms of their respective contracts  of  fishing privilege and suretyship.   This is so, particularly with respect to the sureties-appellants, because suretyship cannot exist without a valid obligation (art. 1824 of the Civil Code).   The obligation whose compliance by the appellant Marasigan was guaran- teed by the  sureties-appellants, was exclusively that appearing in Exhibit A, which should begin on  January 1, 1931, not on the 14th of said month and year, and end on December 31st  next.  They  intervened  in no  other subsequent contract which the plaintiff and Miguel Marasigan might have  entered into on or  after January 14,  1331. Guaranty is not presumed; it must be express  and cannot be extended  beyond its specified  limits  (art. 1827 of the Civil Code).  Therefore, after eliminating the obligation for which said sureties-appellants desired to answer with their bond, the bond  necessarily ceased and it  ceases to have effects.  Consequently, said errors I and III are true and well founded.

As to the second error, it must be known that among the stipulations contained in the stipulation of facts submitted to the court  are the following:

"21. That on July 20, 1931, Miguel Marasigan paid the sum of P16.20 to the municipal treasurer of Gasan, as internal  revenue tax  on  sales of whitefish (bangus) spawn amounting to P1,080 during the months of April, May and June, 1931; and that on August 22,1931, said Miguel Marasigan presented  his sales book  to the municipal treasurer of Gasan, Mr. Gregorio D. Chavez, it appearing therein that said Miguel Marasigan,  in the month of July,  1931, sold  whitefish spawn amounting to P85; in the month of August, 1931, none, and in the  month of September,  1931, none.

"22.  That Miguel Marasigan is the concessionaire of the privilege to gather whitefish spawn in the jurisdictional waters of the municipality of Boac, Marinduque, during the period  from January 1, 1931, to December 31 of said  year, and that during  said period of  time he had paid the sales tax on the whitefish spawn in question only in  the municipality of Gasan, without having made any payment in the municipality of Boac.

"23. That defendant Miguel Marasigan, as bidder at the auction of December 9, 1930, deposited  in  the municipal treasury of Gasan the sum of P420, equivalent to 10 per cent of his bid at said auction, and that said sum has not yet been returned to him to date.

"24. That on June 29, 1931, said Miguel Marasigan delivered another sum of P840 to the municipal treasurer of Gasan, making the total amount delivered by him to said municipal treasurer 91,260, the corresponding receipt having been issued to Miguel Marasigan to that effect."

The facts resulting from the stipulations in question warrant and justify the inference that the appellant Miguel Marasigan practically enjoyed the  privilege of gathering whitefish spawn in the jurisdictional waters  of the municipality of Gasan, under the terms of the contract executed by him on December 11,  1930, but which  was cancelled later  by virtue of Graciano Napa's protest,  at least  from the  month  of  April  to the  month  of  July,   1931, inclusive.   If this were not true, he would not have  paid, as he spontaneously  paid to  the municipal treasurer of Gasan, the following sums: P840  on June 29,  1931, and 916.20 on  July  20 of said year, nor presented,  as he in fact presented to said official for inspection, his sales book wherein it appears that his sales of  whitefish  spawn during the month of July of said year amounted  to P85.  The stipulation of facts, however, is silent as to whether or not he enjoyed the privilege in question during the rest of the year.   On the contrary, it states that he sold no whitefish spawn in August or September.

The excuse now offered by appellant Marasigan in his brief  that the above-stated amounts  were on  account of license  fees or taxes on the  privilege  of gathering whitefish spawn in the jurisdictional waters of Boac, obtained by him from  said municipality, is not supported  by  the evidence. If the payments made by him were as  he claims them to be, he would have so stated in the stipulation of facts.  Not having  done so and, furthermore,  the  practice generally observed being  to pay an obligation  in the municipality where the payment is due, the only conclusion possible is that said appellant made all such payments on account of the tacit contract entered into by him and the plaintiff after he  had  received the letter of  January 15, 1931  (Exhibit 21), sent to him  by said plaintiff  through its municipal president.  This conclusion is all the more logical because appellant Marasigan insisted in his answer, and  still continues to insist in his brief, that the plaintiff is obliged to refund to him the amount of P1,260 which he claims to have paid to it, and which is no other than the amount of the two sums of P420 and P840 stated in the last two paragraphs of the above-stated stipulation of facts.  If it were really true,  as said appellant  contends, that said sum of P840 was paid by him on account of his contract  for privpilege of gathering whitefish spawn, executed in his favor by the municipality of Boac, he  would not have insisted in his answer, nor would he now insist in his brief, that  said sum be  refunded to him, because in the absence of evidence, to the contrary, it must be presumed that it was transmitted by  the municipal treasurer of Gasan to that of Boac, inasmuch as, accepting his contention,  he was obliged to  pay something to the latter municipality by virtue of his alleged contract with it.

For the foregoing reasons, the conclusion of this court with respect to the second  error attributed to the lower court by appellant Marasigan is that said error is without merit.  The  truth is that between him and the  plaintiff, there was a tacit contract for the privilege of gathering whitefish spawn in the jurisdictional waters of the municipality of Gasan, based upon Exhibit A, but without the in- tervention of the sureties-appellants, for  the above-stated period,  or from April to July, 1931,  inclusive,  which is equivalent to one and one-third quarter.  Said contract was one which, by its nature, need not be in writing  (sec. 335 of Act No. 190); but it is binding because it has all the essential requisites of a valid contract (art. 1278 of the Civil Code).

The fourth  error is practically disposed of by the same reasons stated in passing upon the second error.

As to the fifth error, it must be stated  that appellant Marasigan really deposited in  the  municipal treasury  of Gasan, as stated in  paragraph 23 of  the  stipulation  of facts, the  sum of P420 on account of his cancelled original contract   (Exhibit A),  and that said deposit has  not  as yet been returned to  him.   Therefore, he is entitled to  be credited with  said sum.

Summarizing all that has  been stated  heretofore, this court holds that  appellant Miguel Marasigan owes  and is bound to  pay  to  the plaintiff  municipality the proceeds  of one  and  one-third quarter, for the  privilege of gathering whitensh  spawn  enjoyed by  him in 1931, at the rate  of P4,200 a year, or P1,400 (P1,050 for one quarter and P for one-third of a quarter); but he is, in turn, entitled to be credited with the sum of P420 deposited by him on December 9, 1930, and P840 paid by him on June 29, 1931, or the total amouat of P1,260.   In other words,  appellant Marasigan is bound to pay the sum of P140 to the plaintiff.

In view of  the foregoing considerations,  this court ab- solves the  defendants-appellants Angel  R. Sevilla and Gonzalo L. Luna from the complaint and orders the defendant-appellant Miguel Marasigan to pay the sum of P140 to the plaintiff municipality.

It is considered unnecessary to expressly mention appellant Miguel Marasigan's counterclaim because, as may  be seen, he is credited in this judgment with the sum of 91,260 which is  all that he claims therein, without special pronouncement as to costs.  So  ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Laurel, JJ., concur.