Plaintiff brought this action before the  Court  of First Instance  of  Manila to secure the  cancellation of  certain surety bonds executed  by it in favor of defendant Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. or, in the alternative, to order defendants Sixto R. Ruiz and Raymundo D.  Dizon to pay to plaintiff the amount of P2,956.60, plus interest thereon, for ultimate delivery  to their  co-defendant  and to order defendants to pay plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that  defendants  Sixto R.  Ruiz obtained  two   crop  loans  in the  aggregate  amount of P11,626.00 from defendant Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., a corporation duly organized  under the laws of the Philippines, subject to the  condition that he shall post surety bonds to guarantee the payment of 25% of said crop loans; that  in  compliance with said condition, plaintiff, also  a corporation, executed in favor  of the milling corporation two  surety  bonds in the aggregate amount of  P2,956.50 for the purpose  above-mentioned; that said bonds  were executed subject to the following conditions: (1)  the creditor shall  apply the share  of  the debtor in the harvest of the  crops  for which the  loans were  granted to the liquidation of said loans and no part thereof shall be applied to other indebtedness until the loans have been fully liquidated; (2) the creditor shall not grant any  additional loan to the debtor in excess of the latter's share in the crops covered by  the  bonds without the prior written consent of the surety; and (3) the liability of the surety will terminate upon complete payment of the indebtedness guaranteed by the bonds; that defendant milling company failed to comply with conditions 1 and 2 mentioned above when it granted to the debtor  loans  in excess of the latter's share in  the  harvest  of the crops covered by the bonds without the written  consent  of  plaintiff, and when  it failed to  notify  plaintiff  of the amount the  debtor has actually availed  himself of the  crop loans  obtained by him, thereby depriving plaintiff of its right to be apprised of the amount of the loan actually obtained, this  notice being necessary to enable plaintiff to take steps  to protect its interest; and that in view of the violations of the conditions above-mentioned, plaintiff is deemed to have been relieved of  its liability under the bonds.

The complaint, as an alternative cause of action, also alleges that defendant Sixto R. Ruiz, as debtor, and defendant Raymundo D. Dizon, as surety, executed an  indemnity agreement in  favor of plaintiff to indemnify the latter for any damage it may suffer as a consequence of its having executed  the  two surety  bonds in favor of  the milling company  mentioned in the preceding  paragraph; that defendant milling company notified plaintiff that the debtor has  an  standing  account with  said  defendant in  the amount of P15,285.72 and demanded that it pay its  share thereof in the amount of P2,956.50 as agreed upon in the surety bonds, and that in the event plaintiff is compelled to pay to the defendant milling company said amount  of P2,956.50, plaintiff would have a  valid cause  of action against debtor and  his  surety for  the  recovery of said amount under the provisions of the  indemnity agreement.

Defendant milling company filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that  the complaint  fails  to state  a  cause of action against it  for  the following reasons: there is no allegation in the  complaint that  plaintiff, as a surety, has paid the obligation it guaranteed, or has been required to pay the same by said defendant.   And granting arguendo that the allegations in the complaint  regarding breach of the conditions of the surety bonds are  true, the same would only be matters  of  defense  which plaintiff  could put up should it be  made to pay its obligation  under the bonds by defendant milling company.

Despite the opposition of plaintiff to this motion to dismiss, the court granted the same in a brief order as follows:  "Defendants" motion to  dismiss  on  the ground that  plaintiff's  complaint  states   no  cause  of action being meritorious, the  same is granted.  This  case  is hereby dismissed, with  costs against  the  defendants." Hence this  appeal.

There  is  merit in the appeal.  While  the  order of the lower court does not state the reasons why it granted the motion to dismiss, for the same is very  laconic, it may however be inferred  from its tenor that it agrees to the grounds  set forth by defendant milling company in  its motion.  The  reasons advanced for the dismissal of the case are that plaintiff,  being a surety of  the debtor who obtained two crop loans from the milling company, has not yet incurred any liability under its bonds because the complaint contains no allegation that it has voluntarily paid the obligation or has been  made to pay the  same to the company in accordance with the terms of the bonds.   It is contended that the allegations of the complaint concerning  breach of the principal conditions  of the bonds  on the part of defendant milling company are mere matters of  defense  which plaintiff could put  up when  demand for payment is made upon it  by the milling company. And these arguments were found by  the lower  'court to be meritorious.

With  this we disagree.  The purpose of the action is not to dispute  the validity of any demand for payment that may have  been made upon plaintiff by  defendant company on the strength of its liability under the  bonds but rather to ask for  its release from its liability  under the bonds for certain  breach  of its conditions committed by the milling company,  and it is for this  reason that the action was brought against the milling company.  It is true that,  as  an  alternative  action,  the  debtor and  the other surety were also  included to  exact liability from them under the indemnity agreement, but that is an action distinct and separate from that alleged against the milling company and as such it  cannot in any way affect the relation  of  the  latter to the plaintiff.  We find therefore immaterial or unnecessary to  allege in the complaint that plaintiff has either paid  or been required  to pay its obligation under the  bonds  by the creditor considering the nature of the main cause  of action.  It is sufficient if it alleges therein, as it actually does,  that the conditions agreed upon in the bonds had been violated. We therefore conclude that the complaint states a valid  cause of  action insofar as the milling company is concerned. 

The order appealed from  is set  aside.  The  case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against appellees.

Bengzon,  Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes,  A.,  Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.