Perfecta Poblete v. Lo Singco

Summary

Perfecta Poblete sought to recover P15,000 from Lo Singco and his sureties Carreon and Benipayao under a hemp stripping agreement (pujanza). Lo Singco failed to pay after the initial P5,000 installment. The sureties challenged the validity of their obligations, arguing the plaintiff was not party to the suretyship document and that discrepancies existed between the suretyship and principal contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the plaintiff could enforce the suretyship despite not being an original party, as she accepted and relied on it. The Court held that discrepancies between contracts did not invalidate the suretyship since the surety's obligations were not greater than the principal's, consistent with Civil Code Article 1826. This case established important precedent on third-party beneficiary rights in suretyship contracts and permissible variations between principal and surety obligations.