Title XV (Guaranty) Flashcards
Page 15 before weren’t cardedd
Obligations of the CREDITOR in a Guaranty
pg. 15
to pay the guarantor the compensation stipulated
General Rule: The creditor does NOT pay the compensation when the CoG is compensated
XPN
C pays -Or only if he bound himself to pay the compensation for the -Or
Obligation of the G-or
To pay [or] perform the obligation (in money or in species) if D fails to do so
Can the guarantor bind himself to pay more than the principal amount of the obligation?
GR: No
if he pushes,
- that undertaking is NOT entirely valid
- valid to the extent of the principal obligation, invalid to the excess
I owe X P100,000. You are my guarantor, and you say that you bind yourself to secure my obligation for P200,000 because you just want to. Then, I defaulted in my payment. Will you pay P200,000 to X?
No, because a G-or’s obligation should not be more than the obligation of the principal debtor (Art. 2054)
In what instance can a guarantor be liable for more than the obligation of the D?
- if guaranty is penal in nature (Gen. Ins & Srty Corp. v. Republic)
- if a surety upon demand fails to pay (in default), thus liable for INTEREST, even in paying for such is liable for more than the principle obligation (RP v. CA & R&B Srty Ins Comp Inc)
- increase is not because of the contract but because of default [and] necessity of judicial collection
knowledge check:
surety v. guaranty
- liability
[S]
solidary liable
[G]
subsidiarily liable
importance in determining w/n a contract is of guaranty and not of suretyship?
Since in suretyship, the liability is solidary, the moment C makes a demand on the D, it puts the suretyship in default thus liable for interest thereby negating the GR of 2056 and XPN applies where suretyship pays more than what he obliged himself to pay
Central Luzon Educational Foundation, Inc. (CLEFI) and General Insurance and Surety Corporation (GISC) executed a surety bond in favor of the Department of Education, guaranteeing CLEFI’s compliance with all its obligations, including the payment of salaries of its teachers and employees, past, present, and future, up to the amount of P10,000.
At the time of execution, CLEFI already owed Remedios Laoag (P685.64) and H.B. Arandia (P820.00), totaling P1,505.64. When CLEFI failed to pay, the government sought to enforce the full P10,000 penalty against GISC. GISC argued that under Article 2054 of the Civil Code, it cannot be held liable for more than the debtor’s obligation.
Issue:
Is GISC liable for the full amount of P10,000, despite CLEFI’s actual unpaid obligation being only P1,505.64?
Yes, GISC is liable for the full amount of 10,000Php
LB: Gen Ins & Srty Corp. v. Republic
GR: the G-or may bind himself for less, but not for more than the principal debtor…should he have bound himself more, his obligation shall be reduced to the limits of that of the D (2054, NCC)
XPN
- the bond/guaranty is penal in nature
“In obligations w/ a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages [and] payment of interests in case of noncompliance…” (1226, NCC)
note
- EVEN WHEN STIPULATED THAT THEY WONT BE, THEY WILL BE LIABLE
sit. 1
X defaults in his obligation of 1M to you, in ObliCon once there is default, compensatory interest kicks in. The legal interest of 6% will come in. Then, you demand from me as surety or guarantor. Can the creditor demand from the guarantor the interest on top of the 1M?
No, while the D is in default, the guarantor is not yet in default.
sit. 2
Now, when you demand payment of the loan and X defaulted, we agreed that interest started to run. Who is liable to pay that interest?
principal debtor
sit. 3
So, if the surety paid the interest in addition to the 1M, did the surety become liable for more than the liability of X the debtor?
No, because X is still liable for the interest because it was his own default
sit. 4
So, what interest are we talking about when you say that the “surety is liable for more than the liability of the debtor”?
Legal interest of the default of the surety, not of the principal debtor.
wideally, G-or pays when obligation is due but what if G-or pays C before it fell due. What are his rights?
- G-or cannot ask reimbursement against D because the obligation has not fallen due
- but if D ratifies payment, then he is liable now to reimburse G-or
Art. 2069. If the debt was for a period and the guarantor paid it (to the C) before it became due, he cannot demand reimbursement from the debtor, until the expiration of the period, unless the payment has been ratified by the debtor.
C. Duty to notify of the payment
[a] If the debtor pays, not knowing that the guarantor already paid, the guarantor must recover from who?
[b] on what principle is this?
[a]
G-or must recover from C not D
[b]
an exception to the rule of solution indebiti
knowledge check: what is solutio indebiti
“payment by mistake” thus the recipient is legally obligated to return it
a person mistakenly pays something they were not supposed to
in what instance will the D reimburse the guarantor in a scenario where both G-or and D paid the amount to the creditor?
- if CoG is gratuitous
- notice to D by G-or is prevented by Fortuitous event
- if C is insolvent
Why does the guarantor need to notify the debtor before payment?
if notice is given AFTER payment by G-or, D may set up defenses against the G-or to avoid paying or reimbursing
Defenses by D:
1. D has already paid
2. D’s obligation has been extinguished by prescription
3. C has condoned D’s obligation
4. D was given an extension by C
note
- 4 - extension [and] payment w/o consent of G-or releases him of his undertaking
- if notified before, G-or has these defenses
Creditor collected both from the debtor and guarantor.
If the guarantor paid and did not notify the debtor of the fact of payment, and because the debtor did not know that the guarantor paid, he also paid the creditor.
Can G-or recover from D?
No, G-or must recover from C, not D
Privileges of the Guarantor
- benefit of exhaustion (excussion)
- benefit of division
what is the Benefit of exhaustion (excussion)
It is the right available to the guarantor to demand that the creditor first exhaust the properties of the debtor, which are within the Philippines and which are not exempt from execution
what must G-or do if he is impleaded?
how can he invoke the right of exhaustion properly?
It is G-or’s obligation to point out to the C Debtor’s properties w/in Philippines not exempt from execution
your client is the C in a CoG, what should you advice him with practical steps in order to go after the G-or
- He must first exhaust the properties of the debtor.
- He must resort to all legal remedies against the debtor.
- He must prove that the debtor is unable to pay.
- He must notify the guarantor of the debtor’s inability to pay.
- Otherwise, if the guarantor is prejudiced due to lack of notice, he cannot be made to pay, unless there is a waiver on the part of the guarantor.
what is the best proof that the debtor cannot pay procedurally?
when the return of writ of execution unsatisfied
Machetti obtained a loan from Hospicio de San Jose, with Fidelity & Surety Co. acting as his guarantor. The loan became due, but Machetti failed to pay. Hospicio de San Jose then demanded payment from Fidelity & Surety Co., but the latter refused, arguing that its liability as a guarantor arises only if Machetti is proven to be unable to pay.
Hospicio de San Jose countered that Machetti had already been declared insolvent in an insolvency proceeding and insisted that this was sufficient proof of his inability to pay.
As the creditor, can Hospicio de San Jose compel Fidelity & Surety Co. to immediately pay the debt? Explain.
No,
LB: Machetti vs. Hospicio de San Jose
SC
- Such inability to pay may be proven by the return of a writ of execution unsatisfied or by other means, but it is not sufficiently established by the mere fact that Machetti has been declared insolvent in an insolvency proceeding in which the extent of the insolvent’s liability to pay is not determined until the final liquidation of his estate.
[note]
- Here you cannot even obtain a writ of execution because there is no judgment against the principal debtor Machetti just because he was “insolvent”
- Rather, Hospicio must prove first that they cannot collect from the debtor and that is by obtaining an unsatisfied writ of execution which can only be issued by a court’s JUDGMENT
The guarantor pointed out to the creditor leviable properties of the debtor, but the creditor failed to levy. Subsequently, the debtor became insolvent, can the creditor collect the entire amount from the guarantor?
No. The guarantor’s obligation would be extinguished to the extent of the value of the property which was not levied upon by the creditor due to his fault.
A case was filed for collection against the D and trial court ordered the surety to pay without it being impleaded
what is the effect of a writ of execution against surety who was not impleaded
LB: Towers Assurance Corp v. Ororama Supermart
[SC]
- while sureties do not have the right of exhaustion, they still have the right to be given the opportunity to be heard
- However, modified ruling in the case of Finman Gen Assurance Corp v. Salik
Distinguish
Towers Assurance Corp v. Ororama Supermart
vs.
Finman Gen. Assurance Corp v. Salik
[Tower Assurance Case]
- surety was not notified of the proceeding and no opportunity to be heard was given therefore no JD to compel them to pay
[Finman Gen. Assurance Case]
- surety was notified but did not participate in the proceedings nor filed an answer and was declared in default
- opportunity to be heard was present so they are compelled to pay
When should the benefit of excussion be invoked?
- Interpose it as soon as C makes demand
- It should be invoked the moment demand to pay is made upon the guarantor, even if it is an extrajudicial demand. (2059 xpns)
- If a case is filed, the guarantor must invoke the privilege BEFORE the judgment is rendered by the trial court.
- If invoked on appeal, then it is too late already. ☹☹
- He must point to the creditor to levy the properties of the debtor. Otherwise, he cannot anymore invoke the privilege. (Bitanga vs. Pyramid Construction)
JN Development Corporation (JN) obtained a ₱2,000,000 Export Packing Credit Line from Traders Royal Bank (TRB), secured by a real estate mortgage and a 70% guarantee from Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation (PhilGuarantee). When JN defaulted, TRB demanded payment from PhilGuarantee, which in turn informed JN but received no response. PhilGuarantee then paid TRB ₱934,824.34 and later demanded reimbursement from JN and its co-debtors, who refused, arguing that PhilGuarantee waived its right of excussion.
Is JN and its co-debtors liable to reimburse PhilGuarantee?
Yes,
LB: JN Dev’t Corp. v. PhilGuarantee
Yes, JN and its co-debtors are liable to reimburse PhilGuarantee.
[GPT]
Yes, JN and its co-debtors are liable to reimburse PhilGuarantee.
While PhilGuarantee had the right of excussion, it waived this right when it paid TRB ₱934,824.34 without first requiring the creditor to exhaust JN’s leviable properties. However, this waiver does not extinguish JN’s obligation to reimburse PhilGuarantee. Under Article 2066 of the Civil Code, a debtor must indemnify a guarantor for any amount paid on their behalf. Therefore, JN remains liable to reimburse PhilGuarantee for the amount paid.
Bar Fact Pattern:
Luanzon borrowed ₱150,000 from Tomacruz with a 5% monthly interest for business purposes. To secure the loan, Luanzon issued a promissory note and postdated checks, while Baylon signed the promissory note as a guarantor. When Luanzon defaulted, Tomacruz filed a case for specific performance against Luanzon and Baylon. However, summons was never served on Luanzon (Debtor), and the trial proceeded only against Baylon (Guarantor). The court ruled against Baylon, holding her liable for the debt.
Is Baylon’s liability as a guarantor immediately demandable?
No
[SC]
- The decision of the court be cannot executed against Baylon, the guarantor.
- It is axiomatic that the liability of the guarantor is only subsidiary. The property of the debtor must first all be exhausted before his own is levied upon.
2059 (3) provides that excussion shall not take place
in case of insolvency of the debtor
explain why judicial declaration of insolvency is not enough with LB
LB: Machetti case
It is not sufficiently established by the mere fact that the debtor has been declared insolvent in insolvency proceedings, in which the extent of the insolvent’s inability to pay is not determined until the final liquidation of his estate.
2059 (5) provides that excussion shall not take place
(5) if it may be presumed that an execution on the property of the principal debtor would not result in the satisfaction of the obligation
does this provision mean that you can go after the guaranty?
No, this provision is presumed when other previous writs of execution were NOT satisfied so you cannot expect na ma satisfy pa na nimo.
Case: When the Benefit of Excussion is Not Available
Pyramid entered into a Compromise Agreement with Macrogen Realty, where Bitanga, the president of Macrogen, guaranteed the full payment of the company’s P6,000,000 obligation. After Macrogen failed to pay its installments, respondent Pyramid moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, which the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) granted. The sheriff, however, was unable to locate any property of Macrogen, except a bank deposit of P20,242.33.
Respondent demanded that Bitanga, as the guarantor, either pay the obligation or point out properties of Macrogen that could be levied to satisfy the debt. Despite these demands, Bitanga did not respond.
Bitanga later argued in his defense that the benefit of excussion was still available to him as a guarantor, claiming that Macrogen’s uncollected credits could still satisfy the debt.
Issue:
Can Bitanga still invoke the benefit of excussion, considering the demands were made prior to the judgment?
No, Bitanga can no longer invoke the benefit of excussion.
LB: Bitanga vs. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corp.
[SC]
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. Such failure on petitioner’s part forecloses his right to set up the defense of excussion.
[gpt]
You’re right in thinking that the benefit of excussion should be invoked before judgment is rendered by the trial court, but the key point is that it must be done in a timely manner. This means the guarantor must invoke the benefit of excussion at the right stage of the proceedings—before judgment, but also before it’s too late to do so effectively.
What is the Benefit of Division
When there are several guarantors for
- one [and] the same debtor [and] debt, the obligation to answer for the same is divided among all of them.
The C may only claim from each guarantor his corresponding share, unless solidarity has been expressly stipulated.
Requisites for the benefit of divisions
- There are several guarantors
- They guaranteed only one debtor
- There is only one debt
Case: Effect if one of the two guarantors paid half of judgment debt
same reason as right of excussion
When should the benefit of division be invoked?
- The same as for the benefit of exhaustion.
What is the rule if each and all guarantors secure the entire debt?
The benefit of division applies if each and all guarantors secure the entire debt; but not if each guarantor answers for a separate portion.
Explanation of Mira Hermanos v. Manila Tobacconists (Benefit of Division Case)
This case involves two sureties (Provident Insurance Co. and Manila Compañia de Seguros) who issued separate bonds to secure the obligations of Manila Tobacconists, Inc. under a consignment agreement with Mira Hermanos, Inc.
Facts:
- Mira Hermanos delivered goods to Manila Tobacconists on consignment.
- Initially, Provident Insurance Co. issued a P3,000 bond to secure Tobacconists’ obligation.
- As business grew, Mira Hermanos required an additional P2,000 bond, which Manila Compañia de Seguros issued.
- Tobacconists later owed P2,272.79, which they admitted but couldn’t pay.
- Mira Hermanos demanded payment from both sureties.
- Provident Insurance Co. paid P1,363.67 (60%) and demanded Manila Compañia de Seguros pay the remaining 40%.
- Manila Compañia de Seguros refused, arguing its bond only covered amounts exceeding P3,000, not any part of the first P3,000.
Issue:
Can Provident Insurance Co. demand contribution from Manila Compañia de Seguros under the benefit of division rule in Article 1837 of the Civil Code?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled NO, because:
1. Article 1837 applies only when multiple sureties guarantee the same debt.
2. Here, the sureties secured different parts of the debt:
- Provident Insurance Co. secured the first P3,000.
- Manila Compañia de Seguros secured only the excess over P3,000, up to P5,000.
3. Because their guarantees were not co-extensive, Provident Insurance Co. could not demand contribution under the benefit of division.
BAR Fact Pattern (Based on the Case)
Mira Co. entered into a consignment agreement with Taba Corp., requiring a security bond. Surety A issued a P3M bond covering any obligations of Taba Corp. up to P3M. Later, as Taba Corp.’s business expanded, Mira Co. required an additional P2M bond, which Surety B provided.
Taba Corp. defaulted and owed Mira Co. P2.2M. Surety A paid P1.3M and demanded Surety B cover the remaining balance under the benefit of division rule in the Civil Code.
Issue: Can Surety A demand contribution from Surety B under the benefit of division?
Since the total amount of the obligation of the debtor did not exceed the amount of P3,000, only Provident is liable.
It cannot invoke the benefit of division.
No, they cannot. What was secured by Provident was the first 3M and the succeeding 2M was secured by Manila
Compania.
(same debtor, but different debts)
Defenses of the Guarantor
defenses which pertain to DEBTOR
- The guarantor may set up against the creditor all defenses which pertains to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt; but not those purely personal to the debtor.
- The surety may [pfrvp] invoke fraud, violence, prior payment, res judicata, prescription and others of the same class.
- Defenses purely personal:
- minority
- incapacity
- ## other vices of consent principal debtor may waive unless G-or was ignorant of the vice as he could not the waive the defect
Defenses of the Guarantor
Defenses peculiar to GUARANTY
- merger
- novation
- extension of time, etc
which invalidates the contract between C & surety
(see: Extinguishment of Guaranty 2076)
Effects of Guaranty Between the DEBTOR and the G-OR
A. BEFORE payment by G-or
- receive compensation agreed upon by the parties, if any
- To demand relief from the guaranty against the action of the creditor or security against the danger of the debtor’s insolvency, in certain instances.
- To demand security against the danger of the debtor’s insolvency
- Prejudice to the creditor’s rights
- Object of action for relief
If it is the guarantor’s right to be paid by the agreed compensation. Can he therefore refuse to pay the secured obligation if he is not paid the compensation?
No
LB: Pryce v. CA
Pryce agreed to put up a surety bond on the conditions that premium should be paid, but the premiums weren’t paid because the checks issued were dishonored.
- So, the guarantor here or surety, was not paid the agreed compensation. The Supreme Court said that for as long as there is consent, the bond is accepted by the creditor, then the guarantor/surety is bound.
So, the mere fact that the guarantor/surety was not paid by the agreed compensation WILL NOT ABSOLVE him from the obligation.
Before payment, what is the right of the guarantor?
- The right to be paid by the agreed compensation.
- He can also demand relief from the guaranty.
right of the guarantor > * He can also demand relief from the guaranty > WHEN
When he sued for payment in case of insolvency of the debtor in the instances in Art. 2071
right of the guarantor > * He can also demand relief from the guaranty >
When he sued for payment in case of insolvency of the debtor in the instances in Art. 2071
enumerate these instances
In all these cases, the action of the guarantor is to obtain release from the guaranty, or to demand a security that shall protect him from any proceedings by the creditor and from the danger of insolvency of the debtor
- When he is sued for payment
- In case of insolvency of the principal debtor
- When the debtor has bound himself to relieve him from the guaranty within a specified period and the period has expired
- When the debt has become demandable by reason of the expiration of the period of payment
- After the lapse of 10 years, when the principal obligation has no fixed period for its maturity
- If there are reasonable grounds to fear that the principal debtor intends to abscond
- If the principal debtor is in imminent danger of becoming insolvent
How can the guarantor seek relief for security?
- By an action in court for either relief or additional security
- Directed against the principal debtor
The guarantor learned that the debtor is in danger of becoming insolvent. So, the guarantor filed a case against the debtor to be released from the guaranty. Now, the creditor would be prejudiced if the guarantor would be released from the guaranty because the debtor is about to become insolvent.
What is the more equitable action to file so as to not prejudice the rights of the creditor?
- Normally, mu file ug motion to be released si guarantor then mu file pud ug motion to intervene si creditor.
- The guarantor can demand from the debtor a subguaranty or indemnity agreement.
As creditors would not consent to relieve the G-or of his undertaking, how then to persuade C? what is the middle ground?
As G-or ask for indemnity contract from the Debtor basically asking another guarantor (Sub-Guaranty) which assures that if G-or pays, then G-or can go after sub-Gor [or] against the indemnity bond
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. posted a bond of ₱8,812 in favor of the government to secure the faithful performance of a bridge construction project undertaken by Batu Construction. Due to unsatisfactory progress, the government annulled the contract and held Manila Surety liable for any excess costs.
Meanwhile, unpaid workers filed a claim for ₱5,960.10 against Batu Construction and included Manila Surety as a defendant.
Before making any payment under the bond, Manila Surety sought to compel Batu Construction to provide sufficient security for its potential liability.
Can Manila Surety, as a surety, invoke Article 2071 as a cause of action against Batu Construction even before payment? If so, what ground?
Yes
LB: Manila Surety v. Batu Construction
2071 under guaranty is applicable to sureties.
Article 2071. The guarantor, even before having paid, may proceed against the principal debtor:
(1) When he is sued for the payment
(IOW, G-or can go after D even before G-or pays C)
the action brought for the collection of unpaid wages amounting to P5,960.10 and one of the defendants therein is Manila
Surety.
- It does not provide that the guarantor be sued by the creditor for the payment of the debt.
- It simply provides that the guarantor or surety be sued for the payment of an amount for which the surety bond was put up to secure the fulfillment of the obligation undertaken by the principal debtor.
note
* It does not fall under paragraph 6, because there is NO PROOF that “there are reasonable grounds to fear that the principal debtor intends to abscond.”
- It does not come under paragraph 7, because the defendants, as principal debtors, are not in imminent danger of becoming insolvent, there being NO PROOF to that effect.
Rights of the G-or AFTER payment
a. Personal Action for reimbursement
b. Action in subrogation of the creditor
Rights of the G-or AFTER payment > personal action for reimbursement >
The guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified by the latter (2066)
If the guarantor seeks reimbursement, what can he recover?
(TIED)
➢ The amount he paid
➢ Legal interest from the time the payment was made known to the debtor, even though it did not earn interest for the creditor
➢ Expenses incurred AFTER having notified the debtor that payment had been demanded of him
➢ Damages when circumstances show
Rights of the G-or AFTER payment > Action in subrogation of the creditor
what is subrogation in this context?
subrogation means that the guarantor (or surety) steps into the shoes of the creditor after paying the debt. This means that the guarantor acquires all the rights that the creditor previously had against the principal debtor.
Rights of the G-or AFTER payment > Action in subrogation of the creditor
D borrows from C P1,000,000, secured by a mortgage, and guaranteed by G. D was unable to pay, and the mortgage was foreclosed and P500,000 was paid to C. Since the amount was not enough, G also paid C P500,000. Now, D has a right to redeem the mortgage within 1 year from the date of sale.
If G exercise the right of subrogation, can G be the one to redeem the mortgaged property from the highest bidder in the sale?
- No, The right to redemption pertains to D, the debtor-mortgagor.
- Subrogation puts G in the shoes of Creditor, not D!
[a] When can the guarantor exercise the action in subrogation of the creditor?
[b] does the exercise require any other positive act?
WHEN;
➢ the principal obligation is also secured by another security undertaking such as mortgage, and
➢ the guaranty was constituted with the consent of the debtor.
[b]
This results by operation of law from the act of payment and there is no necessity for the guarantor to ask the creditor to expressly assign his rights of action.
Rights of the G-or AFTER payment > Action in subrogation of the creditor
Can the guarantor be subrogated to the creditor in his rights if the guaranty was constituted without the consent of the debtor?
- Yes, he may, but only if the creditor consents.
- If the guaranty was constituted without the consent of the debtor, the guarantor cannot compel the creditor to subrogate him with his rights, and the guarantor is entitled only to beneficial reimbursement unless of course the C consents
knowledge check: what is beneficial reimbursement
when a 3rd person pays the obligation W/O CONSENT of the D, only entitled to reimbursement for the amount actually paid
so if you are G-or & you have need to exercise the right of subrogration, what will you do?
- foreclose the mortgage
- sell the property pledge to pay for the obligation
Granting both the right to seek reimbursement and right to subrogation are present. If you are the guarantor, which action would you take? Would you seek reimbursement, or would you go for subrogatory action?
if D is solvent, seek reimbursement
if D is insolvent, foreclose the mortgage
Why is it more advantageous to the debtor to seek subrogatory rights rather than seek reimbursement when the debtor is insolvent?
If you seek for reimbursement, you cannot recover since the debtor is insolvent, you are only an ORDINARY C, and since the debtor is insolvent, it is not guaranteed you will be paid with the full amount as PREFERRED Cwill prevail over you
Solvency v. Liquidity
[L]
- having sufficient assets but in the form of non-cash assets (unlike real property, movable, etc)
[S]
- assets are NOT sufficient to pay liabilities
GUARANTY GIVEN WITHOUT CONSENT OR AGAINST THE WILL OF THE DEBTOR
(Guaranty constituted upon the request of ANOTHER PERSON not the Debtor)
RULES:
- If the guarantor should pay without notifying the debtor, the latter (D) may enforce against him all the defenses which he could have set up against the creditor at the time the payment was made.
- If the guarantor has paid without notifying the debtor, and the latter not being aware of the payment, repeats the payment, the former has no remedy whatever against the debtor, but only against the creditor.
Nevertheless, in case of a gratuitous guaranty, if the guarantor was prevented by a fortuitous event from advising the debtor of the payment, and the creditor becomes insolvent, the debtor shall reimburse the guarantor for the amount paid
- If one, at the request of another, becomes a guarantor for the debt of a third person who is not present, the guarantor who satisfies the debt may sue either the person so requesting or the debtor for reimbursement.
GUARANTY GIVEN WITHOUT CONSENT OR AGAINST THE WILL OF THE DEBTOR > Rule 1 >
- If the guarantor should pay without notifying the debtor, the latter (D) may enforce against him all the defenses which he could have set up against the creditor at the time the payment was made.
