Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L-32425 November 21, 1984THE IMPERIL INSURNCE, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs.EMILI T. !"I!, defendant-appellant. RELO", J.:Petition fo evie! on cetioai of the decision endeed b" the then #out of Fist Instance of Manila in #ivil #ase No. $%%&', sustainin( the )one" clai)s of plaintiff-appellee, The I)peial Insuance, Inc. a(ainst defendant-appellant *)ilia T. David, based on thee +', diffeent causes of action in the co)plaint.The fist t!o causes of action involve the inde)nit" a(ee)ents !hich defendant-appellant and he deceased husband, Felicisi)o V. Re"es, -ointl" and seveall", e.ecuted in favo of heein appellee, fo and in consideation of t!o +/, suet" bonds unde!itten b" it to lift the lift the !its of attach)entin #ivil #ase No. 0/&' of the Ri1al #out of Fist Instance fo the a)ount of P$2,222.22, and in #ivil #ase No. 3-0/&4, also !ith the sa)e cout fo the a)ount of P42,222.22The thid cause of action involves accued pe)iu)s and docu)enta" sta)ps fo fou +4, "eas !ith le(al inteest theein fo) the filin( of the co)plaint also unde!itten b" appellee.Recods sho! that Felicisi)o V. Re"es and his !ife, heein appellant, e.ecuted t!o +/, inde)nit" a(ee)ents in favo of appellee -ointl" and seveall" to assue inde)nification of the latte fo !hateve liabilit" it )a" incu in connection !ith its postin( the secuit" bonds to lift the attach)ents in #ivil #ase No. 3-0/&' fo the a)ount of P$2,222.22, and in #ivil #ase No. 3-0/&4 fo the a)ountof P42,222.22, fo the benefit of Felicisi)o V. Re"es.5ate, Felicisi)o V. Re"es and his !ife, -ointl" and seveall", e.ecuted anothe inde)nit" a(ee)ent in favo of appellee to assue inde)nification of the latte unde a ho)estead bond fo the su) of P%,022.22 it had e.ecuted -ointl" and seveall" !ith the) in favo of the Develop)ent 6an7 of the Philippines. On the sa)e date, Felicisi)o V. Re"es and his !ife paid to appellee the su) of P&0'.''covein( the pe)iu) and othe e.penses fo the ho)estead bond on the fist "ea.Felicisi)o V.Re"es died and Special Poceedin(s No. &/849 of the then #out of Fist Instance of 6ulacan, entitled :In the Matte of the Instestate of Felicisi)o V. Re"es,: !as co))enced. ;is !ife, heein appellant, s a conse )otion to dis)iss !as filed b" heein appellant on the follo!in( (ounds. to !it? +&, the cout has no -uisdiction ove the natue of the action o suit@ +/, the co)plaint states no cause of action@ and +', the plaintiffAs causes of action, if thee be an", have been baed fo its failue to file its clai)s a(ainst the estate of the deceased Felicisi)o V. Re"es in due ti)e.The lo!e cout denied the )otion fo lac7 of )eit. Theeafte, appellant, as defendant in said #ivil #ase No. $%%&', filed he ans!e.>fte tial, the cout endeed -ud()ent odein( defendant *)ilia T. David +heein appellant,&. to pa" the plaintiff unde the fist cause of action, the a)ount of P$2,222.22 !ith inteest at le(al ate fo) the filin( of the co)plaint until fun pa")ent shall be effected@ and a futhe su) of P&,0//.02 annuall" fo) Bune /2, &8$& until te)ination of this case, said a)ount epesentin( pe)iu)s and docu)enta" sta)ps in the suet" bond, *.h. :6:, !ith inteest at le(al ate fo) the filin( of the co)plaint until full pa")ent is )ade@/. to pa" the plaintiff unde the second cause of action, the a)ount of P42,222.22 !ith inteest at the le(al ate fo) the filin( of the co)plaint until full pa")ent sha( be )ade@ and a futhe su) of P&,&20.22 annuall" fo) Bune /2, &8$& until te)ination of this case, said a)ount epesentin( pe)iu)s and docu)enta" sta)ps on the suet" bond *.h. :6:, !ith inteest at the le(al ate fo) the filin( of the co)plaint until full pa")ent is )ade@'. to pa" the plaintiff unde the thid cause of action the a)ount of P&0'.'' annuall" fo a peiod of 4 "eas fo) Bune /8, &8$/ epesentin( pe)iu)s and docu)enta" sta)ps on the ;o)estead 6ond *.h. :#-&: !ith inteest at the le(al ate fo) the filin( of the co)plaint until full pa")ent is )ade@4. to pa" the plaintiff in concept of attone"As fees the su) of P/2,222.22, epesentin( /2C of the pincipal clai) of plaintiff@ plus cost. +pp. '8-42, Rollo,The pincipal issue aised b" appellant *)ilia T. David in this appeal is !hethe o not the lo!e couthas -uisdiction ove plaintiffAs causes of action. She contends that appelleeAs clai) should have been pesented accodin( to Rule 9$ of the Revised Rules of #out and its failue to do so opeates to ba its clai) foeve@ that the co)plaint failed to state a cause of action@ that the !it of attach)ent!as i)povidentl" issued@ and, that the lo!e cout should have discha(ed the !its. Futhe, she a(ues that the -ud()ent on attone"As fees has neithe le(al no factual basis.=e find no )eit in this appeal. Dnde the la! and !ell settled -uispudence, !hen the obli(ation is a solida" one, the cedito )a" bin( his action in toto a(ainst an" of the debtos obli(ated in solidu). Thus, if husband and !ife bound the)selves -ointl" and seveall", in case of his death he liabilit" is independent of and sepaate fo) he husband s@ she )a" be sued fo the !hole debt and it !ould be eo to hold that the clai) a(ainst he as !ell as the clai) a(ainst he husband should be )ade in the decedentAs estate. +>(caoili vs. Vda. de >(caoili, 82 Phil. 8%,In the case at ba, appellant si(ned a -oint and seveal obli(ation !ith he husband in favo of heein appellee@ as a conseFFIRM*D in toto !ith costs a(ainst appellant.SO ORD*R*D.Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-errera, !lana, "utierre#, $r. and %e la Fuente, $$., concur.