This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the  Province of Iloilo by Fabiola Severino, with whom is joined her husband Ricardo Vergara, for the purpose of recovering the sum of P20,000 from Guillermo Severino and Enrique Echaus, the latter in the character of guarantor for the former.   Upon  hearing  the cause the  trial court gave judgment in favor  of the plaintiffs to recover the sum of P20,000 with lawful  interest  from November  15, 1929, the date of the filing of the complaint, with costs.  But it was declared that execution of this judgment should issue first against the property of Guillermo Severino, and if no property should be found belonging to said defendant sufficient  to satisfy  the judgment  in whole  or in part, exe- cution  for the  remainder should be issued against the property of Enrique Echaus as guarantor.  From this judgment the defendant  Echaus appealed, but his principal, Guillermo Severino, did  not. The  plaintiff Fabiola  Severino is  the recognized natural daughter of Melecio Severino,  deceased,  former resident of Occidental Negros.  Upon the death of  Melecio Severino a number of years  ago, he left  considerable property and litigation ensued between his widow, Felicitas  Villanueva, and Fabiola Severino, on the one part, and other heirs of the deceased on the  other part.  In order to make  an end of this litigation a compromise was effected by which Guillermo Severino, a son of Melecio Severino, took over the property pertaining to the estate of his father at the same time agreeing to pay $100,000 to Felicitas Villanueva and Fabiola Severino.  T*his sum of  money was made payable, first, P40,000 in cash upon the execution of the document of compromise, and the balance in three several payments of P20,000 at the end  of one year," two  years, and three years respectively.   To  this contract the appellant Enrique Echaus affixed his name as guarantor.  The first payment of P40,000 was made on July 11,  1924, the date when the contract of  compromise was executed; and of this amount the plaintiff Fabiola Severino received the sum of P10,000. Of the remaining ^60,000,  all as yet unpaid, Fabiola Severino is entitled to the sum  of P20,000. It appears that at the time  the compromise agreement above-mentioned was executed Fabiola Severino had not yet been judicially recognized as the natural daughter of Melecio Severino, and  it was stipulated that the last  P20,000 corresponding to Fabiola and the last P5,000  corresponding to Felicitas  Villanueva should be retained on deposit until the definite  status of Fabiola Severino as natural daughter of Melecio  Severino  should be established.  The judicial decree to this effect was  entered in the  Court of First Instance of  Occidental Negros on June 16, 1925, and as the money which was  contemplated to be held  in suspense has never in fact  been paid to the  parties  entitled thereto,  it results that the point respecting  the deposit  referred to has ceased to be of moment.

The proof shows that the money claimed  in this action has never been paid and is still  owing to the plaintiff; and the only defense worth noting  in this  decision is the assertion  on the part of Enrique Echaus that  he received nothing for  affixing his signature  as guarantor to the contract which is the subject of suit and that in effect the contract was lacking in consideration as to him.

The point is not well taken.   A guarantor or surety  is bound by the  same consideration  that makes the contract effective between the principal  parties thereto.  (Pyle vs. Johnson, 9 Phil., 249.)  The compromise and dismissal of a lawsuit is recognized in law as a valuable consideration; and the dismissal of the action  which Felicitas Villanueva and Fabiola Severino had instituted against  Guillermo Severino was an adequate consideration to support the promise on the part of Guillermo Severino to pay the sums of money stipulated in  the contract which is the subject of this action.  The promise of the appellant Echaus as guarantor  is therefore  binding.  It is  never necessary that a guarantor or surety should receive any part of the benefit, if such there be, accruing to  his principal.  But the true consideration of this contract was the  detriment suffered by the plaintiffs in the former action in  dismissing that proceeding, and it  is immaterial  that no benefit  may have accrued either to the principal or his guarantor.

The judgment appealed  from is in all  respects  correct, and the same will be  affirmed,  with costs against the appellant.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C.  J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.