TITLE I, CHAPTER III

SECTION 4 – JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS

(Arts. 1207-1222)

WEEK 5 (27 JULY)

ADVANCE LECTURE

1. What are the kinds of obligations according to the number of

parties?

(a) Individual – there is only one debtor or one creditor in an obligation.

(b) Collective – there are two or more debtors and/or two or more
creditors in one and the same obligation. It may be joint or solidary.

2. How do you distinguish between a joint and solidary obligation?

(Art. 1208)

(a) Joint – one where there is a concurrence of several creditors or

several debtors, or of several creditors and debtors, by virtue of
which each of the creditors has a right to demand while each of the
debtors is bound to render compliance only with his proportionate
part of the prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation.
“To each his own.” In other words, each of the creditors is entitled to
demand the payment of only a proportionate part of the credit, while
each of the debtors is liable for the payment of only a proportionate part
of the debt.

(b) Solidary – one where there is a concurrence of several creditors or

several debtors, or of several creditors and debtors, by virtue of
which each of the creditors has a right to demand, while each of the
debtors is bound to render entire compliance with the prestation,
which constitutes the object of the obligation.
 “One for all, all for one.” In other words, each of the creditors is
entitled to demand the payment of the entire credit, while each of the
debtors is liable for the payment of the entire debt.

3. Presented below are the illustrative effects of joint and solidary

obligations in tabulated form. –
(a) D1 and D2 are joint debtors of C for P20,000.00.

Joint Debtors’ Creditor’s Individual

Debtors duty claim Creditor
D1 P10,000.00
P20,000.00 C
D2 P10,000.00
Total
P20,000.00 P20,000.00 Total claim
liability

D1 and D2 may be compelled to pay only P10,000.00 each, which is

their proportionate part of the total obligation.

(b) D1 is a debtor of C1 and C2, joint creditors, for P20,000.00.

Individual Creditors’ Joint

Debtor’s duty
Debtor claim Creditors
P10,000.00 C1
D P20,000.00
P10,000.00 C2
Total
P20,000.00 P20,000 Total claim
liability

C1 and C2 can demand only their proportionate part of the total

credit which is P10,000.00 each.

(c) D1 and D2 are joint debtors of C1 and C2, also joint creditors, for
P20,000.00.
 Joint Creditors’ Joint
Debtors’ duty
Debtors claim Creditors
P5,000.00 C1
D1 P10,000.00 P5,000.00 C2
P5,000.00 C1
D2 P10,000.00 P5,000.00 C2
Total
P20,000.00 P20,000.00 Total claim
liability

Art. 1208 states that when an obligation is joint, the total credit or
debt shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or
debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another.
(2 debtors X 2 creditors = 4 debts/credits) Hence, either D1 or D2 can be
compelled to pay only their proportionate part of the debt in the amount
of P10,000.00 each (P5,000.00 to C1 and P5,000.00 to C2). On the other
hand, either C1 or C2 can demand only their proportionate part of the
credit in the amount of P10,000.00 each (P5,000.00 from D1 and P5,000.00
from D2).

(d) D1 and D2 are joint debtors of C1 and C2, solidary creditors, for
P20,000.00.

Joint Debtors’ Creditors’ Solidary

Debtors duty claim Creditors
D1 P10,000.00 C1
P20,000.00
D2 P10,000.00 C2
Total
P20,000.00 P20,000.00 Total claim
liability

As solidary creditors, either only C1 or only C2 can collect the entire

P20,000.00 credit. However, the obligation of the debtors being joint, the
entire P20,000.00 debt cannot be collected from only either D1 or D2. Of
the P20,000.00 credit which either C1 or C2 will collect, only P10,000.00
can be demanded from D1 and the other P10,000.00 from D2.
(e) D1 and D2 are solidary debtors of C1 and C2, joint creditors, for
P20,000.00.

Solidary Debtors’ Creditors’ Joint

Debtors duty claim Creditors
D1 P10,000.00 C1
P20,000.00
D2 P10,000.00 C2

Total liability P20,000.00 P20,000.00 Total claim

Since D1 and D2 are solidary debtors, anyone of them may be

compelled to pay the entire P20,000.00 debt. However, the creditors’
obligation being merely joint, neither C1 nor C2 can demand payment
beyond their proportionate part of the credit. In other words, while the
entire debt may be paid by only one of the debtors (either D1 or D2), the
payment of the entire credit cannot be demanded by only one of the
creditors (either C1 or C2). Hence, C1 and C2 can demand only their
proportionate share of the obligation, which is P10,000.00 each, from
either D1 only or D2 only.

(f) D1 and D2 are solidary debtors of C1 and C2, solidary creditors, for
P20,000.00.

Solidary Creditors’ Solidary

Debtors’ duty
Debtors claim Creditors
D1 C1
P20,000.00 P20,000.00
D2 C2

Total liability P20,000.00 P20,000.00 Total claim

Since the obligations of both parties are solidary, any one of the
creditors (either C1 or C2) may demand payment for the entire credit. In
the same manner, any one of the debtors (either D1 or D2) may be made
liable for the entire debt.

4. Art. 1208. – When the obligation is collective (i.e., there are two
or more debtors or two or more creditors), the obligation is presumed to
be joint.

Hence, solidarity in a collective obligation is never presumed. There

are only three instances when solidarity may be demanded :

(a) Conventional – when the contracting parties

Kinds of expressly agree and stipulate that the
Solidarity obligation is solidary.
According
(b) Legal – when the law demands solidarity.
to
Source :  (c) Real – when the nature of the obligation
requires the liability to be solidary.

5. What are the kinds of solidarity according to the parties bound :

(a) active – solidarity on the part of the creditors. [3(d) above]

(b) passive – solidarity on the part of the debtors. [3(e) above]
(c) mixed – solidarity on the part of the debtors and creditors. [3(f)
above]

6. How do you distinguish between a joint and indivisible

obligation?

(a) When we say joint obligation, it has particular reference to the

juridical tie which binds the parties to the obligation. It speaks of the
respective obligations of the parties. Hence, as previously discussed,
the parties in a joint obligation are liable only for their proportionate
shares.
(b) On the other hand, when we say indivisible obligation, this has
particular reference to the prestation of the obligation – that is, the
possibility or impossibility of partial fulfillment of the parties’
prestation. Hence, when the obligation is indivisible, it means that
the prestation required to be performed by the debtor is not
susceptible of division.
Example: The prestation to deliver a car is indivisible because the
debtor cannot deliver half of the car today and deliver the other half
tomorrow.
(c) An obligation, therefore, may be “joint and divisible”, “joint and
indivisible”, “solidary and divisible”, or “solidary and indivisible”
(Art. 1210). We will understand the consequences of this class of
obligations better when we go to Section 5 on “Divisible and Indivisible
Obligations.”

7. Let us say that D1, D2 & D3 are jointly liable to give C a car
valued at P24,000.00. This is an example of a joint indivisible obligation.
Article 1209 outlines, in part, the rights and obligations of the parties in a
joint indivisible obligation. Just take note of Art. 1209. The article will
be better understood if we study it in conjunction with Art. 1224 under
the next Section.

8. What are the rights of creditors in solidary obligations?

(a) The right to demand entire payment of the debt or the entire
compliance with the prestation from any one of the debtors. (Art.
1207) [See No. 3(e) & 3(f) above.]

(b) The right to file an action for compliance with the obligation against
one, some or all of the debtors simultaneously. (Art. 1216, 1st
sentence)
(c) If the debt has not been fully collected from one debtor, the creditor
has the right to demand payment from the remaining debtors. (Art.
1216, 2nd sentence)

(d) The right to do whatever may be useful to the other creditors, but not
anything that may be prejudicial to the other creditors. (Art. 1212)

(e) The right to assign his rights under the solidary obligation, BUT
ONLY with the consent of the other solidary creditors. (Art. 1213)

(f) The right to make a novation, compensation, confusion or remission

of the debt. (Art. 1215)

9. Let us apply the foregoing precepts to an illustrative case : D1,

D2 & D3, solidary debtors, owe C1, C2 & C3, solidary creditors, the sum
of P600,000.00 payable on December 15, 2015.

(a) C1, C2 AND/OR C3 may demand from D1, D2 OR D3 payment of

the entire P600,000.00.

(b) C1, C2 AND/OR C3 may demand from D1, D2 AND/OR D3

payment of the entire P600,000.00.

(c) If C1, C2 AND/OR C3 demands payment of the entire P600,000.00

only from D1, and D1 is not able to pay or pays only P200,000.00, C1,
C2 AND/OR C3 can still proceed against D2 AND/OR D3 for
P600,000.00 (if D1 did not pay any amount), or the entire remaining
balance of P400,000.00 (if D1 paid only P200,000.00).

(d) This rule is based on the theory of mutual agency (i.e., the right of one
to act for and in the name of the others) among the solidary creditors.

(d.1.) Example of beneficial act : Let us suppose that if demand for

the payment of the loan is not made by the creditors within 10 years
from the time the obligation became due, the creditors’ right will have
 prescribed. In other words, after 10 years, the obligation of the
debtors will be deemed extinguished. Hence, even if only C1 makes a
demand for the payment of the entire P600,000.00 before December
15, 2025, this demand will benefit also C2 & C3, i.e., it is as if C2 and
C3 also made their respective demands within the prescriptive period
of 10 years.

(d.2.) Example of prejudicial act : Let us assume C1, without the

consent of C2 & C3, informs D1, D2, & D3 that he (C1) is condoning
their P600,000.00 debt. The entire obligation, as far as D1, D2, & D3
are concerned, will be extinguished, because of the fact that the notice
of condonation came from one of the solidary creditors who is
deemed to have condoned the entire obligation for and in behalf of
the other solidary creditors, C2 & C3. However, the act being
prejudicial to C2 & C3, C1 has to reimburse C2 & C3 the amount of
P200,000.00 each, the latter’s respective shares in the entire credit.
(Art. 1215)

(e) Should one of the solidary creditors decide to assign his right to
another person, he can only do so if he obtains the consent of ALL the
other solidary creditors. (Art. 1213) The reason behind this
prohibition is that each creditor represents the others, and the
assignee (the person to whom the credit was assigned) may not have
the confidence of the original solidary creditors. It is reasonable for
the other solidary creditors to anticipate the possibility that the
creditor-assignee after receiving payment may not give the shares of
his co-solidary creditors.

(f) Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt has one

uniform effect on the obligation – its extinguishment. So, if any of the
solidary creditors executes an act with the object of extinguishing the
obligation, the obligation will be extinguished. This extinguishment
will bind both the solidary debtors and the solidary creditors.
However, the solidary creditor who executed the act resulting in the
extinguishment of the obligation will be held liable to the other
solidary creditors (who did not give their consent to the act). This
 means that the solidary creditor who so acted has to reimburse the
other solidary creditors for their proportionate share in the credit.
(Art. 1215) (See the previous example in (d.2.).

10. What are the obligations of solidary debtors?

(a) To pay the entire debt or fulfill the entire prestation when so
demanded by the creditors. (Art. 1214)

(a.1.) Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the

obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor
may choose which offer to accept. (Art. 1217, par. 1)

(a.2.) To whom must the debtor pay? ANSWER: The general rule is
that the debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors. BUT when
a demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of the
solidary creditors, payment should be made to the demanding
creditor (Art. 1214). This is to avoid confusion as well as prejudice to
the more diligent creditor. If not made to the demanding creditor, the
obligation will be extinguished, BUT only insofar as the share of the
creditor-payee (the creditor to whom payment was made) is
concerned.

Example: D1, D2 and D3 are solidary debtors of C1 and C2 for

P50,000.00. C1 makes a demand on D1 for the payment of the entire
obligation. If instead of paying C1, D1 pays C2 the entire P50,000.00,
the obligation will be extinguished only to the extent of C2’s
proportionate share in the credit, which is P25,000.00. Therefore, C1
can still demand from D1 payment of the remaining P25,000.00.
However, if it is D2 who pays the entire obligation to C2, the
obligation will be completely extinguished. This is because, although
payment was not made to the demanding creditor C1, it was made by
the solidary debtor (D2) upon whom NO DEMAND was made by C1.

(b) To pay his corresponding share in the debt in case one of the solidary
debtors made full payment of the obligation, with the interest for the
 payment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is
due, no interest for the intervening period may be demanded. (Art.
1217, par. 2)

(b.1.) Let us go back to the illustrative case in No. 9. If on December

15, 2015, D1 pays the entire P600,000.00 (which he is obliged as
solidary debtor), D1 can thereafter demand reimbursement from D2
and D3 for their proportionate shares in the credit. In other words,
while the obligation has now been extinguished from the solidary
creditors’ viewpoint, it does not mean that D2 and D3 are already free
from liability. As among themselves, solidary debtors, after D1 pays
the entire P600,000.00, D2 and D3 have now the obligation to
reimburse D1 in the amount of P200,000.00 each. Thus, the payment
made by D1 creates a joint obligation of reimbursement on the part of
D2 and D3. And pursuant to Art. 1217, par. 2, if D2 and D3 will
reimburse D1 their proportionate share only on December 15, 2016, or
a year after D1 made payment, D1 is entitled to one-year legal interest
on the proportionate shares of D2 and D3 – that is, 6% of P200,000.00
(see Art. 2209).

(c) To pay for the share of an insolvent co-debtor in proportion to the

debt of each when one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his
insolvency, reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation.
(Art. 1217, par. 3)

(c.1.) Let us suppose that D1, D2 & D3 owe C1, C2 & C3 P600,000.00
but in the following proportions: D1 – P150,000.00; D2 – P250,000.00; and
D3 – P200,000.00. If D1 pays the solidary creditors the entire P600,000.00
debt, we said that he is entitled to reimbursement from D2 and D3 for the
latter’s designated shares in the debt which is P250,000.00 and
P200,000.00, respectively. What will happen if only D2 reimburses D1,
but D3 cannot refund the P200,000.00 to D1 because of his (D3)
insolvency? Under Art. 1217, par. 3, how much is D2 obliged to refund
D1 in addition to D2’s proportionate share of P250,000.00? Art. 1217, par.
3 says that the share of the insolvent solidary debtor shall be borne by his
co-debtors in proportion to the debt of each. How do we compute this?
Solven Reimbursement Proportionate Share to
Proportion Insolvent
t Share in the be Borne by the Solvent
ate Share Debtor’s
Debtor Insolvent Debtor’s Debtors (Art. 1217, par.
in the Debt Share
s Share 3)
150,000/400,000 = 3/8 of P200,000 = P
D1 150,000.00
3/8 P200,000.0 75,000
250,000/400,000 = 0 5/8 of P200,000 =
D2 250,000.00
5/8 P125,000
TOTA
400,000.00 8/8 TOTAL P200,000.00
L

So, if D3 becomes insolvent, D2 has to reimburse D1 his proportionate

share in the entire debt (which is P250,000.00), plus D2’s reimbursement
share in the proportionate debt of the insolvent debtor in the amount of
P125,000.00 – a total of P375,000.00.

(c.2.) If a solidary debtor, however, makes payment after the

obligation has been extinguished by any of the causes provided in this
Code, he will lose his right to joint reimbursement from his co-debtors.
(Art. 1218)

Illustrative example. – D1 and D2 are solidarily liable to deliver to

C1 and C2 12 tarsiers from the forests of Bohol. Before delivery due date,
however, the Philippine Congress enacted a law declaring tarsiers
endangered animals, and criminalized, among other acts, the hunting and
selling of tarsiers. Despite the passage of the law, D1 handed over to C2
the 12 tarsiers that he had earlier obliged himself to deliver. In such a
case, D1 cannot ask for any reimbursement from D2 because the payment
was made after the obligation had become illegal.

(c.3.) Also, a solidary debtor who obtained a remission of the debt

from the creditor losses his right to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
(Art. 1220)

Illustrative example. – D1 and D2 are solidarily liable to C1 and

C2 in the amount of P100,000.00. Because D1 was the grandchild of C1
and C2, they remitted the whole obligation last Christmas before it fell
due. In this case, D1 cannot ask D2 for reimbursement of D2’s
proportionate share in the debt because D1 never made any payment.
How about if, of the P100,000.00 debt, only P80,000.00 was remitted by C1
and C2. In such a case, D2 has no obligation to reimburse D1 for the
P30,000.00 of D2’s proportionate share which was affected by the
remission. However, D2 is still liable to C1 and C2 for P20,000.00, the
remaining portion of his proportionate share in the entire P100,000.00
debt owing.

(d) To pay for his share in the debt in case the debt had been totally paid
by anyone of the debtors before the remission was effected (Art.
1219).

(d.1.) This may arise in a situation where the creditor makes a

remission of the share which affects one of the solidary debtors. In
this case, the solidary debtor who is the beneficiary of the remission
by the creditor, after full payment by his co-debtor, is still obliged to
reimburse the debtor-payor for his (the debtor-beneficiary)
proportionate share in the debt.

(d.2.) Illustrative example. – On January 1, 2015, D1 and D2, solidary

debtors, borrowed money from C in the amount of P500,000.00 due
on or before June 30, 2015. On January 15, 2015, D2 paid the entire
debt of P500,000.00 to C. On February 14, 2015, C remitted the
obligation in favor of D1. Can D2, after having paid for the entire
debt, ask for reimbursement from D1 for the latter’s proportionate
share in the obligation considering that C had remitted the obligation
in favor of D1?

(d.2.1.) Despite the remission granted by C in favor of D1, D1 will

still be liable to D2 for his P250,000.00 proportionate share of the
entire debt. In this case, the remission which was effected after D2
had already paid the entire debt is considered to be without effect
since the obligation had already been extinguished by payment. Since
C had already received the entire credit in the amount of P500,000.00
before he remitted the obligation in favor of D1, C cannot be allowed
to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of D2. Hence, if it was really
C’s intention to remit D1’s proportionate share, C, in behalf of D1,
may reimburse D2 for D1’s proportionate share in the obligation in
the amount of P250,000.00.

(d.3.) Another illustrative example. – On January 1, 2015, D1, D2 &

D3, solidary debtors, borrowed money from C in the amount of P1M
due on or before June 30, 2015. The proportionate shares in the debt
of the solidary debtors are as follows : D1 – P200,000.00; D2 –
P300,000.00; and, D3 – P500,000.00. On January 15, 2015, C remitted
the share of D3. On February 14, 2015, D1 paid the entire debt of P1M
to C. On March 15, 2015, D2 became insolvent.

(d.3.1.) Can D1, after having paid for the entire debt, ask for
reimbursement from D3 for the latter’s proportionate share in the
obligation? NO. When D1 paid the entire obligation on February 14,
2015 (inclusive of the P500,000.00 proportionate share of D3), C had
already remitted the share of D3. Hence, as of January 15, 2015, the
proportionate share of D3, which was remitted by C, had already
been extinguished. However, D3 can demand the return of the
P500,000.00 from C under the principle of solutio indebiti.

(d.3.2.) Since D2 has now become insolvent and is unable to

reimburse D3 for his (D2) proportionate share in the amount of
P300,000.00, is D3 (whose proportionate share was already earlier
remitted by C) obliged to contribute to the share of D2? YES.
Pursuant to Art. 1217 (par. 3), the share of the insolvent co-debtor
shall be borne by all his co-debtors in proportion to the debt of each.
The remission made by C can only refer to the share of D3 in the
obligation and cannot, therefore, affect D3’s responsibility to
contribute to the share of D2, the insolvent solidary debtor. While C,
as a creditor, can extinguish the proportionate obligation of D3, he
cannot modify the rights and obligations of the solidary debtors as
among themselves. Hence, D3 is still obliged to contribute to the
share of D2 in the amount of P214,285.71 (5/7 of P300,000.00). [Refer
 to the manner of computation as outlined under No. 10 (c)(c.1.)
above.]

11. Art. 1211. Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the
debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods
and conditions.

Illustrative Case : D1, D2 and D3 are solidary debtors of C for

P300,000.00 under the following terms and period :

D1 – P50,000.00, due on June 30, 2014

D2 – P150,000.00, due on December 31, 2014
D3 – P100,000.00, due on June 30, 2015

On June 30, 2014, C made a demand upon D1 to pay the entire obligation
but the latter paid only P50,000.00. Subsequently, because of D1’s refusal
to pay the balance, C filed a case against D1 for collection of the amount.
Will C’s action prosper? Reasons.
Answer : For the moment, the action will not prosper. It is true that the
obligation here is solidary and that its solidary character is not destroyed
by the fact that the debtors are bound by different periods for payment as
expressly provided for in Article 1211 of the Civil Code. However, in
solidary obligations of this type, the right of the creditor is limited to the
recovery of the amount owed by the debtor whose obligation has already
matured, leaving in suspense his right to recover the shares
corresponding to the other debtors whose obligations have not yet
matured. This limitation on the creditor’s right does not destroy the
solidary character of the obligation because, ultimately, he can still
compel one and the same debtor, if that is his wish, to pay the entire
obligation. Therefore, on December 31, 2014, when D2’s obligation shall
have matured, C can collect the amount of P150,000.00 from either D1, D2
or D3. And on June 30, 2015, C can again collect the remaining balance of
P100,000.00 from any of the solidary debtors. Assuming that C, as of June
30, 2015, had not collected anything from the solidary debtors, this time C
can collect his entire P300,000.00 from any one of the solidary debtors D1,
D2 or D3.

12. What are the rights and obligations of solidary debtors in case of
loss or impossibility of the prestation? How are such rights and
obligations affected by the happening of a fortuitous event, and the onset
of delay? (Art. 1221)
(a) If without fault or due to a fortuitous event – no liability is attached;
the obligation is extinguished. (par. 1)
(b) If with fault – liability attaches; the debtors shall be liable for the value
of the object plus damages and interest, subject to the right to
reimbursement from the guilty debtor. (par. 2)
(c) If due to a fortuitous event BUT AFTER default – the same liability in
the preceding instance attaches. (par. 3)

From a reading of Art. 1221, it is clear that although the loss or

impossibility of the prestation was due to the fault of only one of the
solidary debtors, all the debtors shall answer to the creditor for the price
and the payment of damages and interest. But the innocent co-debtor(s)
shall have a right of recourse against the guilty or negligent co-debtor.

Illustrative Case : D1, D2 and D3 solidarily promised to deliver to C,

on December 15, 2014, a 2013 Toyota Hi-Luxe, with Plate No. ABC-
123, and which was worth P2.4M. On November 30, 2014, the pick-up
figured in an accident while being driven by D1 under the influence
of alcohol. Later, C makes a demand upon D2. Should D2 be liable
for the price of the pick-up as well as damages or interest? Answer :
YES. D2 may be held liable for the price of the pick-up including
damages or interest even if he was not at fault at all. Remember that a
solidary obligation implies mutual agency; hence, as far as the
creditor is concerned, the fault or delay of one solidary debtor shall be
the fault or delay of all the solidary debtors. Art. 1221 makes D2
liable BUT he can later on recover from the guilty debtor, D1, the
amount of damages or interest that he paid C. This is because had D1
 not been at fault, the obligation would have been already
extinguished.

13. What defenses may a solidary debtor avail against the creditor?
(Art. 1222)

In actions filed by the creditor, the solidary debtor who is sued

may avail himself of these defenses :

(a) All defenses derived from the nature of the obligation. This is a
complete defense.
(b) Defenses which are personal to him.
(c) Defenses pertaining to his share.
(d) With respect to the personal defenses available to his co-debtors, he
may avail himself of those defenses only as regards that part of the
debt for which his co-debtors are responsible.

Illustrative Examples of the different defenses :

(a) D1, D2 and D3 are solidarily indebted to C under a sale of marijuana.

If D1, D2 and/or D3 are sued, none can be held liable because the
prestation is illegal. The obligation being illegal, the same is not
demandable from any of the solidary debtors. This is then a complete
defense available to all the solidary debtors.
(b) D1, D2 and D3 are solidarily indebted to C for P300,000.00, but D1
was insane at the time the obligation was contracted. If C sues D1, D1
has no liability. As to D1, the fact that he was insane at the time the
obligation was contracted is a complete defense. After all, he did not
consent to the obligation contracted and cannot, therefore, be held
liable therefor. This defense, however, is personal to D1 alone.
(c) In the illustrative example under Note No. 11 above, if C, on June 30,
2014, sues D2 for P200,000.00, D2 can set up the partial defense that
his proportionate share in the amount of P150,000.00 is not yet due
and demandable. D2, however, as solidary debtor may be held liable
 for the P50,000.00 proportionate share of D1 that is already due and
matured as of that period.

(d) In the preceding illustrative example in letter (b), if C sues D2 instead

of D1, D2 can be made liable for the whole P300,000.00 MINUS D1’s
share (P100,000.00). This is because D2 can also put up D1’s insanity,
which is merely personal to D1, as a partial defense. In other words,
D2 can avail of D1’s defense but only for the purpose of disclaiming
liability for D1’s share. Hence, having only a partial defense, D2 can
still be held liable for P200,000.00.

APPLICATION OR PROBLEMS:

 The groups are hereby directed to apply the provisions on this section
to the problems given below. Discuss the problems together, and make
sure all the members in the group are versed with the principles used.

1. Jojo and Jaja sold 1,000 sacks of rice to Kiko and Kaka for P1.5M.
On Kiko’s request and after paying the price therefor, Jojo and Jaja
delivered to him the 1,000 sacks of rice. Later, Kiko resold the rice for
P2M and did not turn over any part of it or its price to Kaka. Kaka now
demands for the delivery of the rice. May Kaka compel Jojo and Jaja to
deliver what he bought? If so, how much will Jojo and Jaja be liable to
Kaka under the factual circumstances of the case?

2. On February 15, 2014, Lyn and Rose, in a solidary obligation,

bound themselves to pay P1.5M to Jona, Larry, and Don subject to the
following terms and conditions: Jona’s share will be due on June 1, 2014;
Larry will get his share only if he passes the 2014 Bar Examinations; and
Don, a fourth year LM student, will get his share only after he graduates
from college in 2015.
 (a) On March 25, 2015, shortly before deliberation on the status of
graduates, Don went to Rose and sought to recover the entire P1.5 M.
Don alleged that since Lyn and Rose were solidarily debtors, anyone of
them may be made to answer for the entire P1.5M obligation. May Don
recover from Lyn? If so, how much?
(b) On April 15, 2015, the results of the Bar Exams came out, on the
same day the LM graduation rites took place. Both Larry and Don made
it. Upon hearing the news, Jona, who was Larry’s sister, immediately
went to Lyn and sought to recover under the debtors’ obligation. How
much can Jona recover from Lyn?

3. Jerome, Sam and Nikki promised to give a Toyota Altis car

worth P1.5M in favor of Sky, Lei, Dane and Zier. Jerome became
insolvent, so the other debtors could not purchase the car to be given to
the creditors. Later, Dane and Zier informed the debtors that they were
giving up and waiving their rights under the obligation. In other words,
Dane and Zier were no longer interested in the obligation. How much can
the remaining creditors Sky and Lei each collect from each of the debtors?

4. Benjie obliged to give solidary creditors Connie and Alejo

P100,000.00 on June 30, 2015. On May 15, 2015, Connie assigned his right
to collect under the obligation to Baby. Connie informed Benjie about the
assignment. On June 30, 2015, as promised, Benjie paid the entire
P100,000.00 obligation to Baby. On July 1, 2015, alleging that he has as yet
not received any payment, Alejo demanded from Benjie his proportionate
share in the credit in the amount of P50,000.00. Does Benjie still have an
obligation to Alejo?

5. Teotimo and Vicente, solidary debtors, promised to pay Lydio,

Ison, and Sefa, solidary creditors, the amount of P300,000.00 on December
31, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the lawyer of Sefa sent a demand letter to
Teotimo demanding for payment of the entire P300,000.00. However,
Vicente, who did not know of the demand, had paid Lydio the entire
P300,000.00 on the very same day the demand was made. Is the debtors’
obligation now extinguished? Assuming that Lydio does not remit to Sefa
her proportionate share in the entire credit in the amount of P100,000.00,
can Sefa still collect the said amount from Teotimo?

6. Maria and Clara are solidary debtors of Juan, Pedro and Jose,
solidary creditors, for the amount of P600,000.00. Juan subsequently fell
in love with Maria. On the night he proposed marriage, Juan told Maria
to forget about the whole obligation because Juan was waiving the entire
P600,000.00 obligation. Maria accepted Juan’s proposal, and immediately
went to Clara asking reimbursement for her (Clara’s) proportionate share
in the obligation. Is Clara obliged to reimburse Maria, considering that
the entire debt would not have been remitted by Juan had it not been for
Maria?

7. In the preceding question in No. 6, what will become of the

proportionate shares of Pedro and Jose assuming that the obligation is
now totally extinguished? Can they still recover their respective shares in
the credit under the factual circumstances?

8. Paul, Ken, Jake and Mark are solidary debtors of Anne for
P400,000.00. After Mark paid the entire P400,000.00 to Anne, he went to
Paul asking for reimbursement in the amount of P300,000.00. Mark
contends that since their obligation is solidary, after he paid the entire
debt to Anne, the other solidary debtors will now also be solidary
obligors of Mark with respect to the remaining balance of the debt in the
amount of P300,000.00, after subtracting Mark’s proportionate share of
P100,000.00. Do you agree with Mark’s contention? In other words, can
Mark ask for reimbursement from Paul in the amount of P300,000.00?

9. On January 15, 2014, Donna, Diana and Dora signed a

promissory note which read as follows : “For value received, we promise
solidarily to pay Caloy and Carmel the sum of P600,000.00 on or before
June 30, 2015.” On December 25, 2014, Carmel fell in love with Diana,
and remitted her share in the obligation. On January 28, 2015, Donna
became insolvent.
(a) On July 1, 2015, Caloy went to the house of Diana and wanted to
recover the entire P600,000.00 only from Diana. Can Caloy do so?
How much can Caloy hold Diana liable under the factual
circumstances?

(b) After Donna had become insolvent, on February 5, 2015, Dora paid
the entire P600,000.00 obligation to Caloy who acknowledged receipt
of the entire amount. After paying the said amount, Dora now seeks
reimbursement from Diana. How much is Diana’s liability to Dora?

(c) Caloy and Carmel had an altercation on the occasion of one of their
drinking sprees. Thereafter, or on June 30, 2015, to make sure that
Carmel would not be able to do anything to cheat Caloy out of his
share in the obligation, Caloy instructed his lawyer to send a demand
letter to Diana demanding from her payment of Caloy’s share in the
credit in the amount of P300,000.00. Does Caloy’s act have legal
basis? Can Diana be compelled to pay Caloy the amount of
P300,000.00 despite the remission earlier granted by Carmel in her
favor?

10. Cedric and Matt are solidarily obliged to give Kat a 2014 Ford
Explorer pick-up worth P1M on December 15, 2014. On November 30,
2014, Kat was able to close a deal with Jojo who was willing to pay for
P1.5M for the pick-up upon delivery. Cedric drove the pick-up and
figured in an accident after he beat the red light along the intersection of
Roxas Boulevard and Pedro Gil Street. Cedric miraculously survived the
crash, but the car was completely wrecked beyond recognition. While
Cedric was recovering in the hospital, Kat went to Matt and demanded
from him the amount of P1.5M. Matt, however, refused to pay Kat the
entire amount demanded. As a solidary debtor, Matt did not deny
liability on the amount of P1M. Matt, however, posited that the
additional amount of P500,000.00 which Kat seeks to recover as damages
should properly be demanded only from Cedric whose negligence was
the proximate cause for the loss of the pick-up to be delivered. Does
Matt’s argument have legal basis?
 11. On April 15, 2014, Gladys, Tere and Ella signed a promissory
note in favor of Francis. At the time of the signing, Ella was suffering
from schizophrenia. In the promissory note, the solidary debtors bound
themselves to pay Francis, on April 15, 2015, the amount of P120,000.00.
When maturity date came, the debtors did not make good their promise
under the note. Hence, on April 30, 2015, Francis filed an action against
Gladys demanding for the payment of the entire P120,000.00 obligation.
How much is Gladys liable to Francis under the promissory note, and
considering the factual circumstances?

*** END ***

Being forced to work, and forced to do your

best, will breed in you temperance and self-
control, diligence and strength of will,
cheerfulness and content, and a hundred virtues
which the idle will never know.
Charles Kingsley

Diligence is the mother of good luck.

Benjamin Franklin

What we hope ever to do with ease, we must

learn first to do with diligence.
Charles Kingsley