JOINT INDIVISIBLE OBLIGATIONS

- Art. 1209
If the division is impossible, the right of the creditors may be prejudiced only by
their collective acts, and debt can be enforced only by proceeding
- Presented in Art. 1210
- Even if it cannot be divided, ti shall still be considered as joint
- Illustration: A live horse shared between A, B, C agreed to dleiver to a
creditors X, Y and Z.
- There must be concurrence of all the debtors in the delivery.
- A holding the head, B holding the body, and C holding the butt and delivers to X,
Y and Z who will hold them the same way.
- Art. 1224
- A joint indivisible obligation gives rise to indemnify for dmages from the time
any one of the debtors does not comply with his undertaking.
- If one does not agree, it will become joint and divisible, where htey will only
pay for their corresponding share.
- Illustration: The horse is worth P900,000. In this case, A and B will pay P300K
each.
- What will happen now to C?
- C will be liable not only for his proporitonate share but also his indemnity.
- If X refuses, can Y and Z receive on their own?
- No. The law requires all of them to accept. Hence, Art. 1224 applies again where
the Y and Z may accept their proportionate share.
- X will now be liable for mora accipiendi.

Art. 1209.
- It implies that if the act of one debtor is beneficial, it would have some
benefits also to the others.
- The law seems to require only collective acts if it is prejudicial.
- Illustration: Joint debtos D1 D2 and D3 ow JOint creditors C1 C2 and C3.
- C1 fell in love with D3 as she is beautiful, C1 forgave the debt of D3
(condonation).
- Would it affect D2 and D3?
- Would it have any effect on C2 and C3?
- No. It only affect the other creditors if it was collective.
- What if the act of one creditor is beneficial? Will it affect the other
creditors?
- Prescription.
What is the prescriptive period of contracts?
- Oral 6, written 10.
JOint contract of 900K loan from January 2019 and due and demandable on January
2020. Right must be asserted within January 2030 as it is written. Is there a cause
of action?
- No. It has prescribed.
- However it would be interrupted if a demand is made. (Running of prescriptive
period will be stopped if there is a demand)

What if only one of the creditors made a demand from one of the debtors, will it
stop the running of the prescriptive period? (X made a demand against A)
- Two schools of thought
1.) Man resa
- Art. 1209. The right of creditors may only be prejudiced by their collective
acts.
- X affects Y and Z.
2.) De buen
- The act of a joint creditor would not be valid.
- The indivisible character of a joint obligation requires collective action.
- X does not affect Y and Z.
Agoncillio v. Javier
SC adheres to the De buen doctrine. Whether beneficial or prejudicial, the act of
the creditors must be collective.

SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS
- The concept of solidarity
- Each one of the debtors is liable for the entire compliance of the prestation
- One for all and all for one
- It is more burdensome to the debtor which is why it is not presumed.
- When there are 2 or more detbors or 2 or more creditors or both or at least three
parties
- Presumption only apply in the ff:
1.) The obligation expressly states solidarity (e.g. loans)
- sample provisions are "solidariliy bound", "in solidum", "jointly and solidarily
bound"
2.) When the provisions of a law expressly states the solidarity of parties
- Art. 927 (two or more heirs and one is negligent), Art. [...], Art. 1911, 1915,
1945, 2146. 2157, and 2194. RPC Art. 110. FC law on support.
3.) When the nature of the obligaiton requires solidarity.
- Quasi Delict (vicarious liability)

Negotiable instruments law: A promissory note stating "I promise to pay the amount
to Mr. X" provides the signature of two or more persons. This shall likewise be
solidary. It will be joint if it states "WE promise to pay Mr. X."

Taxi Driver driving the taxi of Mr. X, causes an accident resulting to the injuries
of other cars of 3rd persons thru his negligence. Not only will the driver be
liable but also the owner of the taxi (Mr. X) shall be solidarily liable.

In the case of Soligades v. FEU:

- Culpa Conbtractual
- Only FEU was principally liable
- The security guard was not held as solidarily liable
- It is not vicarious but rather by command of responsibility.
- It was done in fulfillment of a contract and not a tort (culpa aquiliana)

Different types of Solidary Obligation

1. Passive Solidary Obligation - concurrence of two or more ebtors solidarily bound
to one creditor.
2. Active Solidary Obligation - concurrence of two or more creditors who are
solidarily bound have a right against a debtor.
3. Mixed Solidary Obligation - Obligation with two ro more debtors solidarily bound
to two or more creditors whoa re also solidarily bound.

- The debtors will be liable not only for their proportionate share.
- They may be compelled to fulfill the entire obnligation.

D1, D2, D3 solidarily bound to pay C1, C2, C3 P900,000.

- How much can C1 claim from D1?
- C1 can collect P900,000.

Mixed D1, D2, D3, to pay C1, C2, C3 P900,000.

- If the debotrs are solidarily bound, it does not necessarily mean that the
creditos are solidarily bound.
- The creditors may be jointly bound.
- C1 can demand from D1 300,000 only. Because D1 is bound to pay P100k but is
solidarily bound with D2 and D3.
- C2 and C3 can likewise only claim P300k each.

Art. 1211
Art. 1212
- There is mutual agency establiished.
- Debtor represents not only himself but also others.
- Never enter into a solidary obligation with others whom you do not know
Art. 1178
- Rights are transmissible (but it is limited by Art. 1211 and Art. 1213)

Art. 1213
D1-3 (Solidary) and C1-3. P300K.
Can C1 assign his right to A?
- Yes but he would require the consent of C2 and C3.
- C2 and C3 may trust C1 but may not trust A.
C1 want to assign his right to C2, is the permission of C3 needed?
- No. The presumption is that C3 already knows C2.
C1 does not receive the consent of C2 and C3 in assigining A, wah tis the status of
the assignment?
- Invalid
A collects from D1 the payment of the entre obligation, is it valid?
- No. Invalid assignment.
D1 pays A thinking he was a valid assignnee of C1. Can D1 get back the payment
made?
- Yes.
The source of the obliation of A to return the payment to D1. Solutio indebiti or
Art. 22 (in rem verso)?
- Art. 22 accion In rem verso
- There is a mistake not of fact (as required by solutio indebiti) but of law
regarding the assignment of a right.

Example of beneficial
An act of a solidary creditor that would be valid?
- If it is beneficial
D1-3 and C1-3 solidarily bound P900K. C1 collects from D1 the entire amount.
- It is a valid beneficial act and it is binding.

Example of prejudical or detrimental

C1 being gay fell in love with D1. C1 condones the entire obligation. C2 and C3 did
not consent.
- According to Art. 1212, it is not a valid act and therefore no legal effect.
- Art. 1212 is conflicting to Art. 1215

How to reconcile?
- Consider the tie to be affected by such act of remission
- 2 legal ties (the legal tie binding D1-3 to pay C1-3; the legal tie of the
creditor to distribute the shares to his solidary co-creditors)
- when a creditor is able to vcolect the total amount of indebtedness, he will
have the rsponsibility to distribute to the others

If C1 condoned the total amount of D1-3, it will be as if he received the whole

P900,000. He therefore must pay C2 and C3 their proportionate share, in this case,
P300K each.
- The tie of the debtors to pay the creditors shall be exiinguished. They will be
released (Art. 1215).
- The tie which requires to distribute the shares of C2 and C3 will not be affected
as they did not have knowledge or they had knowledge but have vehemently objected.

*Remission -> donation (pinatawad)

Art. 1214 in relation to 126 and 1217

To whom should teh solidary debtor pay?
- Any unless there is a demand judical or extrajudicial
To whom shall the solidary creditor claim?
- Creditor may demand from one or all of them
- If the debtor chooses to whom he wants to make payment but a creditor made a
demand from him the payment, he will lose his right to pay to any other.

Gay C1 demands from Handosme D1 is superior to Handsome D1's original right to

choose to pay to Beauiful C3.
- If D1 still pays C3, it will be a payment to an improper party..
- If C3 collects and does not reimburse the share of C2 and C3 and absconds then C2
and C3 may still claim the same from D1-3 being the proper parties
- Even if C2 demands from D2, D1 still has to pay C1
- So long as there is no payment yet, the debtors will have to pay the first
creditor to demand from them.
- If C2 collects the entire amount, C1 and C3 will then come after C2 jointly (Art.
1215)

Art. 1217 par. 3.

D2 pays C2 the entire amount. C2 is distribute to C1 and C3. D1 now has a right to
collect from D1 and D3 their proportionate shares. D3 becomes insolvent. Wha tis
the consequence?
- D2 can demand from D1 not only D1's share in the original debt (P300k) but D1's
share of D3's original share (P150k) in D3's insolvency.
- Originally 1:1:1 but becomes 1.5:1.5:0

If the failure of D2 to collect from D3 is not due to insolvency, do you apply the
provision?
- No.

Art. 1218.
- no reimbursement if prescribed or becomes illegal
- common sense

Art. 1219 and 1220 in relation to 1215

Art. 1221 par. 1

- common sense
Art. 1221 par. 2.
- solidary liability includes delay, fault, negligence
C1 demands from D1 but D1 fails but incurs from delay. C3 collects from D3 and
dames incured by D1. Valid?
- Yes. But D3 must be reimbursed by D1.

Art. 1221 par. 3.

- Same principle as Art. 1165 par. 3 (liability for damages even in fortuitous
events)

Art. 1222.
- A matter of defense
- Personal defense applicable only to one of the debtors but not to all
- General defense applicable to all debtors.

D1 is a minor which makes the obligaiton voidable. D2 and D3 are of legal age.
Can D3 put up the defense of minority of D1?
- Yes but only as to the amount of D1's share (P300K)
- Not to the remaining P600k

Fault
enforceable by the innocent party.
Read the textbook
Read the Cases
Case of Agoncillio vs. Javier
Cerna vs. Court of Appeals
SUnga Chan v. CA june 25 2008
Chousti comany v yulo 34 phils 1914
In Chiong jr. v Ca june 26 1995
Escano v Ortigas 526 scra
Demayuga v PCIbank 2200 scra 143
De Castro v CA July 18 2002
Bicol Savings Loan Association v. Ginhawa Aug 20 1990

Solidary and

Recitation on: Period Alternative, Facultative, Divisible and Penal Clause

Read 1231-1261 of the Civil Code.