Slike strani
PDF
ePub
[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

Vol. VI

AUGUST, 1919

No. 1

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JOINT (MANCOMUNA-
DA) AND JOINT AND SEVERAL (SOLIDARIA)
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SPANISH LAW
AND AMERICAN LAW

BY VALENTIN REYES Y TAN CHANCO, B.A., LL.B.

(Awarded the Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co. prize of United States Supreme Court Digest, Extra Annotated, 7 volumes, for the best thesis presented for Graduation from the College of Law,, University of the Philippines,

during the school year 1918-1919.)

INTRODUCTION

The writer before beginning his treatise found himself in an embarrassing predicament in the translation of the words "Mancomunada” and “In solidum” of Spanish law. Though there is really no fear of treating the reader with the haughtiness and authority of a despot, there being no opportunity for him to censure the flagrant errors in the subsequent pages, yet it is really a dangerous procedure for no one will like to be treated as an inferior. Hence no strict and self-made translation of the words is attempted here. The precedents of our Supreme Court and the comparison of the effects of the words in question have been liberally consulted in order to free the writer from any responsibility.

According to old acceptation of the word "in solidum" it was translated into English by the word "joint." Justice Willard in his notes on the Civil Code came to the same conclusion by saying "the word solidaria is not properly translated by the word joint." (See Willard notes on Civil Code, page 68.) And again the same author makes mention of this on pages 68 and 69, saying: "It seems more probable that the word 'joint' was intended to refer to the owner of an obligation solidaria where each is responsible for the other." In Pimentel vs. Gutierrez, 14 Phil. Rep. 49, the Court held: "The defendants were severally and not jointly liable under the terms of the contract and that each one was liable to pay an aliquot part of said contract." Therefore the obligation incurred by these defendants is not a joint oneit must be understood to be several and each of them must pay half of the amount.” "When the surety binds himself jointly with the principal debtor, the creditor may sue any of the joint debtors or all of them simultaneously." (Chinese Chamber of

« PrejšnjaNaprej »