SECTION 2: Obligations with a Period  Example: The court ruled that you have to pay

the creditor the amount of 5M Pesos within

ARTICLE 1193: Obligations for whose fulfillment a day next year.
certain has been fixed, shall be demandable only when According to effect
that day comes. Resolutory period (in diem).
- The obligation is valid up to a day certain and
Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at
terminates upon the arrival of the period.
once, but terminate upon arrival of the day certain.
- (Example) “I will give you P1,000.00 a month
A day certain is understood to be that which must
until the end of the year.”
necessarily come, although it may not be known when.
- Obligations with a resolutory Period take effect
at once katulad sa resolutory condition it is
If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will
demandable at once but it will terminate upon
come or not, the obligation is conditional, and it shall
the arrival of that day certain. Instead of the
be regulated by the rules of the preceding Section.
happening of the condition pag dumating yung
araw na yun then it will be terminated. Yun kasi
Meaning of obligation with a period.
ang meaning ng Resolutory: the obligation will
An obligation with a period is one whose
be extinguished upon the fulfillment of either
consequences are subjected in one way or another to
period or condition.
the expiration of said period or term
Suspensive Period (ex die)
- The obligation begins only from a day certain
Meaning of period or term.
upon the arrival of the period.
A period is a future and certain event upon the
- When the time/event comes the obligation
arrival of which the obligation (or right) subject to it
arises.
either arises or is terminated. It is a day certain which
- (Example) “I will pay you 30 days from today.”
must necessarily come, although it may not be known
(or on Jan. 1 next year, or at the end of this
when, like the death of a person.
month.) Here, what is suspended is not the
obligation itself (or right acquired) but merely
Period – future and certain event which have effect on
its demandability
juridical relationship.
- Simply re-stated in other words itong mga
obligasyon na ito ay magiging demandable lang
Par. 1 A certain day is to understood that the day will
pag dating nung araw na yun or pag dating nung
necessarily come although we don’t know when.
event na yun.
What is the difference between a Period and a
There are requisites for a valid period or term
Condition?
- It must refer to the future
Condition is a future and uncertain event
- It must be certain/sure to come
where the happening of which has an effect on juridical
- It must be physically or legally possible
relationship, while a Period is future and certain event
where the happening of which will have effect on
Example: I will pay Anna the amount of 1M pesos on or
juridical relationship.
about December 25, 2023. Is that a valid period or not?
Valid because it is in the future, it’s certain that it will
Kinds of Period Term:
come and it’s physically and legally possible.
According to definiteness:
“on or about” - a few days before or after, no specific
Definite Period
date. (Few days before Dec. 25 or few days after Dec.
 exact date is known or the time of the event is
25)
known
 (e.g., December 25, 2023 you know that the
I will give a car on Anna the moment you become 21
obligation takes effect either resolutory or
yrs old. Now, you die at the age of 20. Is the obligation
suspensive when the day comes which is
to give a car to Anna still valid? The parties are not
December 25, 2023)
stipulating a condition but a period, so it is still valid. I
Indefinite Period
am still obligated to give the car to Anna by the time
 This is something that will surely happen but
your 21st birthday come.
you will not know when.
 (e.g., You know that one day makakapasa kayo
ART 1194: In case of loss, deterioration or
sa oblicon sub, the only question is when? Is it
improvement of the thing before the arrival of the day
this sem? Or is it next year? But surely you will
certain, the rules in Article 1189 shall be observed.
pass the only question is, when?)
According to source:
Effect of loss, deterioration, or improvement before
Legal Period
arrival of period. See comments under Article 1189
 when it is provided by law, law provides for the
period or term. ART 1195: Anything paid or delivered before the
Conventional or Voluntary Period arrival of the period, the obligor being unaware of the
 when the period or term is agreed to by the period or believing that the obligation has become due
parties. and demandable, may be recovered, with the fruits
Judicial Period and interests.
 when the period or term is fixed by the court. Payment before arrival of period.
 Court imposed period Article 1195 applies only to obligations to give.
It is similar to Article 1188, paragraph 2, which allows
the recovery of what has been paid by mistake before
the fulfillment of a suspensive condition.
The creditor cannot unjustly enrich himself by
retaining the thing or money received before the
arrival of the period.
Debtor presumed aware of period.
The presumption, however, is that the debtor
knew that the debt was not yet due. He has the burden
of proving that he was unaware of the period. Where
the duration of the period depends upon the will of the
debtor, payment by him amounts, in effect, to his
determination of the arrival of the period.
The obligor may no longer recover the thing or
money once the period has arrived but he can recover
the fruits or interests thereof from the date of
premature performance to the date of maturity of the
obligation.
EXAMPLE:
D owes C P2,000.00 which was supposed to be
paid on December 31 this year. By mistake, D paid his
obligation on December 31 last year.
Assuming that today is June 30, D can recover
the P2,000.00 plus P120.00, which is the interest for
one half year at the legal rate of 12%2 or a total of
P2,120.00. But D cannot recover, except the interest, if
the debt had already matured.
Neither can there be a right to recovery if D had
knowledge of the period. The theory under solutio
indebiti obviously will not apply. D is deemed to have
impliedly renounced the period.
No recovery in personal obligations.
Article 1195 has no application to obligations
to do or not to do because as to the former, it is
physically impossible to recover the service rendered,
and as to the latter, as the obligor performs by not
doing, he cannot, of course, recover what he has not
done.
Can the creditor recover the money if she intentionally
paid it before the happening of the period? No, because
it’s intentionally paid. Marerecover niya lang money
niya when it’s unintentional and when it’s paid by
mistake.
I will pay you 1M pesos within the 2 nd year. Can she pay
during the 1st year? No.
I will pay you 1M pesos within 2 years. Anytime during
that 2 years pwede siya mag pay.
ART 1196: Whenever in an obligation a period is
designated, it is presumed to have been established
for the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor,
unless from the tenor of the same or other
circumstances it should appear that the period has
been established in favor of one or of the other.
Presumption as to benefit of period.
In an obligation subject to a period fixed by the
parties, the period is presumed to have been
established for the benefit of both the creditor and the
debtor. This means that before the expiration of the
period, the debtor may not fulfill the obligation and
neither may the creditor demand its fulfillment
without the consent of the other especially if the latter
would be prejudiced or inconvenienced thereby.
In a reciprocal contract like a lease, the period
must be deemed to have been agreed upon for the
benefit of both parties, absent language showing that
the term was deliberately set for the benefit of the
lessee or the lessor alone.
EXAMPLE:
On January 1, D borrowed from C P10,000.00
payable on December 31 at 18% interest.
D cannot pay before December 31 without the
consent of C. Neither can C compel D to pay before the
expiration of the term. It is presumed that the period
designated, which is December 31, has been established
for the benefit of both. D is benefited because he can
use the money for one year. C is also benefited because
of the interest the money would earn for one year.
Exceptions to the general rule.
The tenor of the obligation or the circumstances
may, however, show that it was the intention of the
parties to constitute the period for the benefit of either
the debtor or the creditor. The benefit of the period
may be the subject of express stipulation of the parties.
(1) Term is for the benefit of the debtor alone. — He
cannot be compelled to pay prematurely, but he can, if
he desires, do so.
EXAMPLES:
D borrowed from C P10,000.00 to be paid
within one year without interest.
In this case, the period of one year should be
deemed intended for the benefit of D only. Therefore,
he can pay any time but he cannot be compelled to pay
before one year. Although the loan is gratuitous, the
terms and conditions of the contract or other
circumstances may, however, indicate that the period
has been established for the benefit of both parties.
(2) Term is for the benefit of the creditor. — He may
demand fulfillment even before the arrival of the term
but the debtor cannot require him to accept payment
before the expiration of the stipulated period.
EXAMPLE:
D borrowed from C P10,000.00 payable on
December 31 with the stipulation that D cannot make
payment before the lapse of the period but C may
demand fulfillment even before said date.
Here, C can demand payment at any time but D
cannot shorten the one-year period without the
consent of C. Ordinarily, there must be a stipulation
granting the benefit of the term to only the creditor.
It’s presumed that it is on the benefit of the
debtor and creditor. Benefit on the side of the debtor
because di siya pwedeng singilin ng creditor until that
day comes. Benefit naman ng creditor is hindi siya
required na tanggapin yung pera until that certain day
comes.
When there’s an obligation to pay at a certain
time tapos ayaw mong kunin yung pera sakaniya
because of interest, that’s your benefit kaya you don’t
need to accept a payment in advance na walang
kasamang interest. If di naman siya makasingil on that
day, pwede siya mag file sa court ng case for specific
performance plus damages, matagal pero malaki yung
damages na pwede niya masingil plus interest.
“What you know and what you can prove are two
different things” Atty. Lyndon, 2023 (Not all evidences
are valid.)
Article 1197 & 1198 (di na need aralin)
SECTION 3 – ALTERNATIVE OBLIGATIONS
Article 1199
A person alternatively bound by different
prestations shall completely perform one of them.
The creditor cannot be compelled to receive
part of one and part of the other undertaking.
Kinds of obligation according to object.
They are:
(1) Simple obligation. — one where there is only one
prestation
 e.g., S obliged himself to deliver to B a piano; S
promised to repair the car of B
(2) Compound obligation. — one where there are two
or more prestations. It may be.
 (a) Conjunctive obligation. — one where there
are several prestations and all of them are due;
or
 (b) Distributive obligation. — one where one of
two or more of the prestations is due. It may be
alternative (Art. 1199.) or facultative (Art.
1206)
Meaning of alternative obligation.
An alternative obligation is one wherein
various prestations are due but the performance of one
of them is sufficiently determined by the choice which,
as a general rule, belongs to the debtor.
EXAMPLE:
D borrowed from C P10,000. It was agreed that
D could comply with his obligation by giving C P10,000,
or a color television set, or by painting the house of C.
The delivery of the P10,000, or a color television
set, or the painting of the house of C, is sufficient to
comply with the obligation. Performance must be
complete. C cannot be compelled to accept, for
instance, P5,000 and half of the television, thereby
establishing a co-ownership between them, or P5,000,
and the painting of a part of his house.
I will give you my car, my ring or my wifi. The
performance of one of them extinguishes the
obligation. (pwedeng 2 or 3 ang ifulfill pero di lahat)
Can the creditor accept half the ring, half the car and
half the wifi? No, because according to this article the
creditor cannot be compelled to receive the part of one
and a part of another undertaking pero kung gusto
naman ni creditor na ganon ang maging arrangement
nila, walang makakapigil sakanilang dalawa. Sinasabi
lang sa article na ito is hindi mo pwedeng pilitin si
creditor na I-accept ang half of one and half of another
thing, pero as long as nag agree si creditor then okay
lang. Eh paano pag pumayag yung creditor? Pwede as
long as nag agree si creditor.
Article 1200:
The right of choice belongs to the debtor unless
it must be expressly granted to the creditor. The debtor
shall have no right to choose those prestations which
are impossible, unlawful or which could not have been
the object of the obligation.
Right of choice, as a rule, given to debtor.
As a general rule, the right to choose the
prestation belongs to the debtor.
By way of exception, it may be exercised by the
creditor but only when expressly granted to him (Art.
1205.), or by a third person when the right is given to
him by common agreement.
(PAR 1) There are 3 choices; phone, ring, and car, the
debtor has the right to choose kung ano yung ibibigay
niya sa creditor. Is it the phone, the ring, or the car? The
debtor has the choice unless he granted the creditor the
right to choose among the choices.
Right of choice of debtor not absolute.
The right of choice of the debtor is subject to
limitations. Thus —
(1) The debtor cannot choose those prestations
which are: (a) impossible, (b) unlawful, or
(c) which could not have been the object of
the obligation. These prestations are void.
Their presence do not invalidate the
obligation if it includes other undertakings
otherwise free from such defects. In other
words, under Article 1200, the debtor’s
right of choice is not extinguished
altogether but limited to the remaining
valid prestations
(2) The debtor has no more right of choice,
when among the prestations whereby he is
alternatively bound, only one is practicable.
(Art. 1202.) In this case, there is not only a
limitation but a loss of the right of choice
belonging to the debtor. The obligation
becomes simple. The right does not pass to
the creditor, nor may it be exercised by
anyone.
(3) The debtor cannot choose part of one
prestation and part of another prestation.
The debtor shall have no right to choose those
prestation which are impossible, unlawful, or which
could not have been the object of the obligation.
Choices: Phone, Ring, Car, 500 grams of marijuana, a
person.
We will rule out the illegal thing which is the
500 grams of marijuana and the person because a
person is not a subject of commerce, especially if it is a
third party, because it will be a subject of human
trafficking. The debtor cannot choose these 2, he can
only choose from the phone, ring, and the car.
Art. 1201: The choice shall produce no effect except
from the time it has been communicated.
General Rule: When there’s an alternative obligation
the choice of the debtor shall be communicated to the
creditor.
Communication of notice that choice have been made.
(1) Effect of notice - until the choice is made and
communicated, the obligation remains alternative.
 a) Once the notice of the election has been given
to the creditor, the obligation ceases to be
alternative and becomes a simple obligation.
b) Such choice once properly made and
communicated is irrevocable and cannot,
therefore, be changed by either party without
the consent of the other. The concurrence of
the creditor to the choice made by the debtor
is not required. (Dapat the debtor has full
knowledge kung ano yung binibigay niya kay
creditor since di niya nga pwedeng palitan)
c) Where the choice has been expressly given to
the creditor, such choice shall likewise
produce legal effects upon being
communicated to the debtor.
(2) Proof and form of notice - the burden of proving
that such communication has been made is upon him
who made the choice. The law does not require any
particular form regarding the giving of notice. It may,
therefore, be made orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly.
Example:
S obliged himself to deliver to B his car, or his
race horse. S chose the car and properly informed B of
his choice.
The obligation becomes a simple obligation to
deliver the car. As such, neither party can change the
prestation without the consent of the other. Of course,
S or B may waive his right after a choice has been made.
As a general rule, all rights may be waived.
Article 1202: The debtor shall lose the right of choice
when among the prestations whereby he is
alternatively bound, only one is practicable.
Effect when only one prestation is practicable.
If only one is practicable, it is Article 1200 that will
apply. The obligation is still alternative because the
debtor has still the right of choice. If only one is
practicable (e.g. the others have become impossible),
the obligation is converted into a simple one.
Choices: phone, car, ring
(Nawala yung ring and yung phone)
Therefore, the debtor was left with only one choice
which is to give the car to the creditor, it was as if he
had no other choice. So kahit na it was lost (yung 2
other choices) due to the fault of the debtor, he cannot
be compelled for any payment for damages since he still
had the car which also belongs to his choices.
ART. 1203: If through the creditor’s acts, the debtor
cannot make a choice according to the terms of the
obligation, the latter may rescind the contract with
damages.
When debtor may rescind contract.
Rescission creates the obligation to return the
things which were the object of the contract together
with their fruits, and the price with its interest.
It is the very nature of an alternative obligation
that the debtor can make his choice without the
consent of the creditor. Hence, the right given to the
debtor to rescind the contract and recover damages if,
through the creditor’s fault, he cannot make a choice
according to the terms of the obligation.
The debtor, however, is not bound to rescind.
Example:
D borrowed from C P10,000. It was agreed that
instead of P10,000, D could deliver item one, or item
two, or item three.
If through the fault of C item one is destroyed,
D can rescind the contract if he wants. In case of
rescission, the amount of P10,000 must be returned by
D with interest. C, in turn, must pay D the value of item
one plus damages.
D, instead of rescinding the contract, may
choose item two or item three with a right to recover
the value of item one with damages. If D chooses item
one, his obligation is extinguished. C is not liable for
damages.
Example ni Sir: Gusto ni Shy yung sasakyan kasi mahal,
yung singsing and phone ayaw niya, since mas mababa
yung value, so ang ginawa niya tinapon niya yung
singsing and phone para wala ng maging choice si
debtor but to give the car nalang, so dahil sa
intervention ni Shy para di makapili si debtor, the
obligation may be rescinded and the debtor can ask for
payment of damages from Shy (creditor)
ARTICLE 1204: The creditor shall have a right to
indemnity for damages when, through the fault of the
debtor, all the things which are alternatively the object
of the obligation have been lost, or the compliance of
the obligation has become impossible.
The indemnity shall be fixed taking as a basis the value
of the last thing which disappeared, or that of the
service which last became impossible.
Damages other than the value of the last thing or
service may also be awarded.
Effect of loss or becoming impossible of objects of
obligation.
Articles 1203 and 1204 apply when the right of choice
belongs to the debtor. Under Article 1205, the creditor
has the right to choose.
(1) Some of the objects. — If some of the objects of the
obligation have been lost or have become impossible
even through the fault of the debtor, the latter is not
liable since he has the right of choice and the
obligation can still be performed.
This is an exception to the general rule established in
Article 1170 regarding liability for damages arising from
negligence.
(2) All of the objects. — If all of them have been lost or
have become impossible through the debtor’s fault, the
creditor shall have a right to indemnity for damages
since the obligation can no longer be complied with. Of
course, if the cause of the loss is a fortuitous event, the
obligation is extinguished.
The phrase “or the compliance of the obligation has
become impossible” refers to obligations “to do.”
EXAMPLE:
S agreed to deliver item one, or item two, or
item three.
If item one is lost through the fault of S, he can
still select either item two or item three. The loss of
item one and two with or without the fault of S will
reduce the obligation to a simple one.
If all the items are lost through his fault, liability
will attach; if through a fortuitous event, the obligation
will be extinguished.
Basis of indemnity.
The indemnity shall be fixed taking as basis the
value of the last thing which disappeared (referring to
obligations to give) or that of the service which last
became impossible (referring to obligations to do). In
case of disagreement, it is incumbent upon the creditor
to prove such value, or which thing last disappeared or
which service last became impossible
Other damages may also be awarded. (Art.
1204, pars. 2 and 3.)
EXAMPLE:
In the above example, if items one and two are
lost, S will be bound to deliver item three.
If subsequently, item three is also lost through
the fault of S, the basis for indemnity is the value of
item three since S would have been bound to deliver it
had it not also been lost. The liability of S is not affected
although the loss of items one and two was through a
fortuitous event.
If item three is lost without the fault of S, his
obligation is extinguished and he shall not be liable for
damages although the loss of items one and two was
due to his fault. The reason is that after the loss of items
one and two, the obligation is converted into a simple
one to deliver item three. (Art. 1202.)
S cannot be held responsible for the loss of
items one and two through his fault because having the
right of choice, he was not bound to deliver either. The
rule is just since he could have been liable for damages
if item three instead was lost through his fault and
items one and two, through a fortuitous event
ART. 1205. When the choice has been expressly given
to the creditor, the obligation shall cease to be
alternative from the day when the selection has been
communicated to the debtor.
Until then the responsibility of the debtor shall
be governed by the following rules:
(1) If one of the things is lost through a
fortuitous event, he shall perform the obligation by
delivering that which the creditor should choose from
among the remainder, or that which remains if only
one subsists;
(2) If the loss of one of the things occurs
through the fault of the debtor, the creditor may claim
any of those subsisting, or the price of that which,
through the fault of the former, has disappeared, with
a right to damages;
(3) If all the things are lost through the fault of
the debtor, the choice by the creditor shall fall upon
the price of any one of them, also with indemnity for
damages. The same rules shall be applied to
obligations to do or not to do in case one, some or all
of the prestations should become impossible.
Where right of choice belongs to creditor.
In alternative obligations, the right of choice, as
a rule, belongs to the debtor. Nevertheless, the debtor
may expressly give the right of choice to the creditor.
(Art. 1200.) In such a case, the provisions which with
respect to the debtor are laid down in the preceding
articles, shall be applicable to the creditor when the
right of choice is given to him.
Before the creditor makes the selection, the
debtor cannot incur in delay.
Rules in case of loss before creditor has made choice.
(1) When a thing is lost through a fortuitous event.
 EXAMPLE: S obliged himself to deliver to B item
one, or item two or item three, or item four. If
item one is lost through a fortuitous event, B
can choose from among the remainder or that
which remains if three of the items are lost
(2) When a thing is lost through debtor’s fault.
 EXAMPLE: If the loss of item one occurs through
the fault of S, B may claim item two or item
three or item four with a right to damages or
the price of item one also with a right to
damages.
(3) When all the things are lost through debtor’s fault.
 EXAMPLE: If all the items are lost through the
fault of S, then B can demand the payment of
the price of any one of them with a right to
indemnity for damages.
(4) When all the things are lost through a fortuitous
event.
 EXAMPLE: The obligation of S shall be
extinguished if all the items which are
alternatively the object of the obligation are lost
through a fortuitous event. In this case, Article
1174 shall apply.
Rules applicable to personal obligations.
The above rules are also applicable to personal
obligations. (par. 2.) The responsibility of the debtor for
damages depends upon whether the cause which has
rendered the obligation impossible was due to his fault
or not
ART. 1206. When only one prestation has been agreed
upon, but the obligor may render another in
substitution, the obligation is called facultative.
The loss or deterioration of the thing intended as a
substitute, through the negligence of the obligor, does
not render him liable. But once the substitution has
been made, the obligor is liable for the loss of the
substitute on account of his delay, negligence or fraud.
Meaning of facultative obligation.
A facultative obligation is one where only one
prestation has been agreed upon but the obligor may
render another in substitution.
EXAMPLES:
(1) “I will give you my piano but I may give my television
set as a substitute.”
 In this obligation, only the piano is due. Hence,
its loss through my fault will make me liable.
(2) “I will mortgage my land to secure my debt which
shall be payable within 90 days upon my failure to pay
my debt within 30 days.”
 Here, I may mortgage my land in substitution of
the obligation to make payment within 30 days
Effect of loss.
(1) Before substitution. — If the principal thing is lost
through a fortuitous event, the obligation is
extinguished; otherwise, the debtor is liable for
damages. The loss of the thing intended as a substitute
with or without the fault of the debtor does not render
him liable.
The reason is that the thing intended as a substitute is
not due. The effect of the loss is merely to extinguish
the facultative character of the obligation.
EXAMPLE:
S will give B item one or if S wants, item two.
a) If item one is lost through a fortuitous event,
the obligation of S is extinguished. (Arts. 1174,
1262.)
b) If item one is lost through the fault of S, S is
liable for damages. (Art. 1170.)
c) If item two is lost with or without the fault of S,
S is still liable to deliver item one (see Art.
1165.); he is not liable for damage for the loss
of item two as it is not due.
(2) After substitution. — If the principal thing is lost, the
debtor is not liable whatever may be the cause of the
loss, because it is no longer due. If the substitute is lost,
the liability of the debtor depends upon whether or not
the loss is due through his fault.
Once the substitution is made, the obligation is
converted into a simple one to deliver or perform the
substituted thing or prestation. The substitution
becomes effective from the time it has been
communicated. (Art. 1201.)
EXAMPLE:
Based on the preceding example:
(a) If item one is lost with or without the fault of S,
S is not liable for its loss since his obligation is to
deliver item two.
(b) If item two is lost through a fortuitous event,
the obligation of S is extinguished.
(c) If item two is lost through the fault of S, S is
liable for damages.
Alternative and facultative obligations distinguished.
The differences are as follows:
(1) Number of prestations. — In the first, several
prestations are due but compliance with one is
sufficient, while in the second, only one prestation is
due although the debtor is allowed to substitute
another;
(2) Right of choice. — In the first, the right of choice
may be given to the creditor or third person, while in
the second, the right to make the substitution is given
only to the debtor;
(3) Loss through fortuitous event. — In the first, the loss
of one or more of the alternatives through a fortuitous
event does not extinguish the obligation, while in the
second, the loss of the thing due extinguishes the
obligation;
(4) Loss through fault of debtor. —
(a) In the first, the loss of one of the alternatives
through the fault of the debtor does not render
him liable, while in the second, the loss of the
thing due through his fault makes him liable;
and
(b) In the first, where the choice belongs to the
creditor, the loss of one alternative through the
fault of the debtor gives rise to liability, while in
the second, the loss of the substitute before the
substitution through the fault of the debtor
does not render him liable.
SECTION 4 – JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS
ART. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors
or of two or more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply that each one of the former
has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is
bound to render, entire compliance with the
prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the
obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the
nature of the obligation requires solidarity. (1137a)
ART. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the
wording of the obligations to which the preceding
article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit
or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many
equal shares as there are creditors or debtors, the
credits or debts being considered distinct from one
another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the
multiplicity of suits. (1138a)
Kinds of obligation according to the number of parties.
They are:
(1) Individual obligation. — one where there is only one
obligor and one obligee; and
(2) Collective obligation. — one where there are two or
more debtors and/or two or more creditors. It may be
joint or solidary.
In a collective obligation, there are two relations
involved: that between the creditor and the debtors (or
the creditors and the debtor, or the creditors and the
debtors) and that among the creditors and/or debtors
themselves.
Meaning of joint and solidary obligations.
(1) A joint obligation is one where the whole obligation
is to be paid or fulfilled proportionately by the different
debtors and/or is to be demanded proportionately by
the different creditors. (Art. 1208.)
(2) A solidary obligation is one where each one of the
debtors is bound to render, and/or each one of the
creditors has a right to demand entire compliance with
the prestation. (Art. 1207.)
Collective obligation presumed to be joint.
(1) If A is liable to B for P9,000.00, there can be no
problem regarding the determination of the following:
(a) the person liable to pay;
(b) the person entitled to demand payment;
(c) the extent of the liability of the debtor; and
(d) the extent of the right of the creditor.
(2) Where there is a plurality of parties (two or more
debtors and/ or two or more creditors) and the share of
each in the obligation is specified, the correlative rights
and obligations of the parties are known.
Thus, if A, B, and C are liable to D in the amount of
P9,000, and it is stated that the corresponding share of
each debtor is P3,000.00 (it may be in unequal
amounts), we know that A, B, and C are liable only for
P3,000.00 each and that D is not entitled to collect from
each debtor more than his corresponding share in the
obligation.
(3) On the other hand, let us suppose that in the same
obligation, the share of each debtor (or the share of
each creditor, if there are two or more creditors) is not
specified. What is the extent of the liability of A, B, and
C? In such case, the presumption is that the obligation is
joint (Arts. 1207-1208.), and as a consequence:
(a) There are as many debts as there are debtors;
(b) There are as many credits as there are creditors;
(c) The debts and/or credits are considered distinct
and separate from one another;
(d) Each debtor is liable only for a proportionate
part of the debt; and
(e) Each creditor is entitled only to a proportionate
part of the credit.
The presumption established in Article 1208 is,
however, rebuttable.
EXAMPLES:
1) A, B, and C borrowed P9,000.00 from D. The
presumption is that A, B, and C are jointly liable.
Here, there are three (3) debts and one (1)
credit. D can demand only P3,000.00 each from A, B,
and C or a total of P9,000.00.
Since the debts are distinct and separate from
each other, the insolvency of one of the debtors shall
not make the others liable.
2) A borrowed from B, C, and D P9,000.00. Unless the
contrary appears, the obligation is prima facie a joint
one.
In this case, there is one (1) debt and three (3)
credits. Each creditor can demand only P3,000.00 from
A.
3) A and B are liable to C and D for P9,000.00. The same
presumption applies. There are two (2) debts and two
(2) credits.
Each creditor can demand only P4,500.00 from
either debtor. Of course, the total liability of A or B, and
the total collection of C or D, cannot exceed P4,500.00.
Presumption subject to rules on multiplicity of suits.
The presumption in Article 1208 is made
“subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity
of suits” (Art. 1208.); otherwise, situations may arise
where there are as many suits as there are debtors and
creditors. The rules on multiplicity of suits seek to
prevent the filing of two or more suits or complaints for
a single cause of action or the same violation of the
legal right of the plaintiff.
Words used to indicate joint liability.
Other words used for joint obligations are:
mancum, mancomunada; mancomunadamente; pro
rata; proportionately; pro rata, jointly; conjoint; “we
promise to pay” signed by two or more persons.
When obligation solidary.
Solidary liability is not lightly inferred. Under Article
1207, there is solidary liability only when:
(1) the obligation expressly so states; or
(2) the law requires solidarity; or
(3) the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity.
Solidary liability also exists when it is imposed in a final
judgment against several defendants.
Words used to indicate solidary liability.
It is not necessary that the agreement should
employ precisely the word “solidary” in order that an
obligation may be so considered. It is sufficient that the
obligation declares, for instance, that each one of the
debtors can be compelled to pay the entire obligation,
or can be proceeded against for the full amount of the
obligation, or that demand may be made against any
one of them, etc.
Examples of other words used to indicate
solidarity are: severally, jointly and/or severally;
solidaria; in solidum; solidarily; together and/or
separately; individually and/or collectively; juntos o
suparadamente. “I promise to pay” signed by two or
more persons.
Kinds of solidarity.
They are:
(1) According to the parties bound:
(a) Passive solidarity or solidarity on the part of
the debtors, where anyone of them can be made liable
for the fulfillment of the entire obligation. Its
characteristics are plurality of debtors and unity of
prestation. It is in the nature of a mutual guaranty.
EXAMPLES:
(1) A and B are solidary debtors of C in the amount of
P10,000.00. There is here only one debt, the debt of A
and B in the amount of P10,000.00; and one credit, the
credit of C in the amount of P10,000.00 against B and C.
(A distinction must be made between the debt itself and
the persons against whom the debt can be collected.)
C may demand payment from either A or B, or
both of them simultaneously, the whole obligation. (Art.
1216.) Payment by A (or B) extinguishes the obligation
but A (or B) may claim from B (or A) the share which
corresponds to him depending upon the agreement
between them. (Art. 1217.)
In any case, C cannot collect more than
P10,000.00 which is the extent of his credit.
(2) Under their contract, either A or B will pay C
P10,000.00. Here, the debtors are named disjunctively
or in the alternative. Their liability is solidary and C can
demand payment from either of them unless it clearly
appears that the intention of the parties is that either A
or B may pay without right of choice on the part of C.
(b) Active solidarity or solidarity on the part of
the creditors, where anyone of them can demand the
fulfillment of the entire obligation. Its essential feature
is that of mutual representation among the solidary
creditors with powers to exercise the rights of others in
the same manner as their rights.
EXAMPLES:
(1) A is liable for P10,000.00 in favor of B and C who are
solidary creditors.
A may pay either B or C. (Art. 1214.) So long as
the entire debt is not paid, B and C can demand
payment from A. (Art. 1207.) If B (or C) received
payment, he is liable to C (or B) for the latter’s share in
the credit according to their agreement.
The liability of A cannot exceed P10,000.00
which is the extent of his liability.
(2) The obligation of A is to pay P10,000.00 to either B
or C.
 In this case, either B or C may demand payment
from A unless it clearly appears that the intention of the
parties is to give to A the right to choose whom to pay.
(c) Mixed solidarity or solidarity on the part of
the debtors and creditors, where each one of the
debtors is liable to render, and each one of the creditors
has a right to demand, entire compliance with the
obligation.
EXAMPLE:
A and B are solidarily liable to C and D, solidary
creditors, in the amount of P10,000.00.
A (or B) can pay either C or D. C (or D) can
demand from either A or B. The payment by A (or B) of
P10,000.00 to C (or D) shall extinguish the obligation. A
(or B) can ask reimbursement from B (or A) in the
amount of P5,000.00 or such amount agreed upon
between them. C (or D), in turn, is liable to give to D (or
C), the latter’s share of P5,000.00 or the amount
stipulated.
Remember that the agreement between A and
B, as to the extent of the share of each in the debt, or C
and D, as to the extent of the share of each in the
credit, has nothing to do with the agreement between A
and B, on the one hand, and C and D, on the other.
(2) According to source:
(a) Conventional solidarity or where solidarity is
agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 1306.) If nothing is
mentioned in the contract relating to solidarity, the
obligation is only joint.
(b) Legal solidarity or where solidarity is
imposed by the law.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Even when the agent has exceeded his
authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent
if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had
full powers.
(2) All partners are solidarily liable with the
partnership for any crime or quasi-delict committed by
any partner acting in the ordinary course of business of
the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners.
(3) If two or more persons have appointed an
agent for a common transaction or undertaking, they
shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the
consequences of the agency.
(4) When there are two or more bailees to
whom a thing is loaned in the same contract, they are
liable solidarily.
(5) The responsibility of two or more payees,
when there has been a payment of what is not due, is
solidary.
(6) The responsibility of two or more persons
who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.
(7) If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction of a building, he shall be solidarily liable
with the contractor for damages for any defect in the
construction.
(8) In a felony, the principal, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class, shall be
liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiarily for those of other persons
liable. (Art. 110, Revised Penal Code.)
(c) Real solidarity or where solidarity is imposed by the
nature of the obligation.
The law does not expressly indicate the cases
where the liability is solidary because of the nature of
the obligation. The opinion is offered that the cases
contemplated are those in which the intent or purpose
of the law is to have the obligation satisfied in full but
the law itself does not expressly require solidarity.
EXAMPLES:
(1) The nature of the obligation of employers under
the former Workmen’s Compensation Law, to
pay indemnity or compensation or death or
injury caused to their employees while in the
performance of their assigned duty, was held
solidary although the law is silent on this point
because the law was enacted to give full
protection to employees, and if the
responsibility were only joint, the purpose of
the law might not be attained should one of the
employers happen to be insolvent.
(2) Similarly, where the vehicle which figured in an
accident was operated under the so-called
“kabit system,” the award of exemplary
damages, among others, payable jointly and
severally by the operator and the grantee of the
certificate of public convenience was held
justified because the pernicious “kabit system”
is a violation of law.
Solidarity not presumed.
The presumption, where there are two or more
persons in the same obligation, is that it is joint.
The reason is that solidary obligations are very
burdensome for they create unusual rights and
liabilities. Solidarity between debtors increases their
responsibility while solidarity between creditors
increases the right of each creditor. The law tends to
favor the debtors in presuming that they are bound
jointly and not solidarily.
ART. 1209: If the division is impossible, the right of the
creditors may be prejudiced only by their collective
acts, and the debt can be enforced only by proceeding
against all the debtors. If one of the latter should be
insolvent, the others shall not be liable for his share.
Joint indivisible obligation.
This article speaks of a joint indivisible
obligation. The obligation is joint because the parties
are merely proportionately liable. It is indivisible
because the object or subject matter is not physically
divisible into different parts. In other words, it is joint as
to liabilities of the debtors or rights of the creditors but
indivisible as to compliance.
This obligation constitutes the middle ground
between a joint obligation and a solidary obligation.
EXAMPLES:
(1) A, B, and C are jointly liable to give D a car valued at
P240,000.00. On the date of delivery, A and B are willing
to deliver but C is not.
In this case, D has no cause of action against C
for the delivery of the car because, as a joint-debtor, C
is liable only for a proportionate part of the obligation
which is P80,000.00. Since the object (car) is indivisible,
the debt can only be enforced by proceeding against all
the debtors for compliance is not possible unless they
act together.
Pursuant to Article 1224 (infra.), the liability is
converted into one for damages. So, A, B, and C will be
liable for P80,000.00 each or a total of P240,000.00
which is the value of the car without increase of
responsibility for A and B. C, the unwilling debtor, shall
be liable for damages to D for having violated the
obligation.
If A and B suffered damages by reason of the
non-fulfillment by C, they may recover them from C.
Should anyone of the debtors be insolvent, the
others shall not be liable for their share. (Art. 1209.) D
must wait until the insolvent debtor can pay.
(2) If there are two creditors, say D and E, and one
debtor, A, the obligation can be performed only by
delivering the car to them jointly. A (there may be more
than one debtor) can insist that both D and E together
accept the car; and if either of them refuses to join the
other, A may legally refuse to deliver the car. He may
deposit the car in court by way of consignation. (see Art.
1256.)
If A becomes liable to pay damages for non-
performance, D and E can recover only their respective
shares in the indemnity. Neither D nor E may do
anything which may be prejudicial to the other (Art.
1212.) like renouncing or assigning the entire obligation
without the consent of the other. This is so because the
obligation is joint, i.e., the credit of D is separate from
that of E, and, therefore, neither D nor E can act in
representation of the other. Their rights may be
prejudiced only by their collective acts.
ART. 1210: The indivisibility of an obligation does not
necessarily give rise to solidarity. Nor does solidarity of
itself imply indivisibility.
Indivisibility distinguished from solidarity.
The differences are:
(1) Indivisibility refers to the prestation, while
solidarity refers to the juridical or legal tie that binds the
parties;
(2) In indivisible obligations, only the debtor
guilty of breach of obligation is liable for damages (Arts.
1209, 1224.), thereby terminating the agency, while in
solidary obligations, all of the debtors are liable for the
breach of the obligation committed by a co-debtor (Art.
1221.), for solidarity among them remains;
(3) Indivisibility can exist although there is only
one debtor and one creditor, while in solidarity, there
must be at least two debtors or two creditors (Arts.
1207, 1208.); and
(4) In indivisible obligations, the others are not
liable in case of insolvency of one debtor, while in
solidary obligations, the others are proportionately
liable. (Art. 1217.)
The first sentence of Article 1210 simply means
that the liability in an indivisible obligation may be
either joint or solidary. The second sentence means that
in a solidary obligation, the subject matter may be
divisible or indivisible.
EXAMPLES:
(1) A and B are jointly liable to deliver to C a
particular car. Here, the prestation is indivisible but the
liability of A and B is joint. We have what is called a joint
indivisible obligation. (Arts. 1209, 1224.)
(2) If A and B obliged themselves solidarily to
give the car to C, we have a solidary indivisible
obligation — the obligation is indivisible and the liability
of A and B is solidary. To put it in another way, we have
a solidary obligation the subject matter of which is
indivisible. In case of breach, even the innocent debtors
are liable for the entire indemnity without prejudice to
their right of action against the guilty one. (Art. 1221,
par. 2.)
(3) A solidary obligation does not necessarily
mean that the obligation is also indivisible. Thus, where
A and B promised in solidum to pay C P10,000.00, we
have an example of a solidary divisible obligation.
(4) Now, if A and B are jointly liable to pay C
P10,000.00, what we have is a joint divisible obligation.
Money is divisible.
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.
Kinds of solidary obligation according to the legal tie.
They are:
(1) Uniform. — when the parties are bound by the same
stipulations or clauses; or
(2) Non-uniform or varied. — when the parties are not
subject to the same stipulations or clauses.
Solidarity not affected by diverse stipulations.
The essence of solidarity consists in the right of
each creditor to enforce the rights of all and the liability
of each debtor to answer for the liabilities of all.
Therefore, there may be a solidary obligation although
the parties may not be bound in the same manner and
by the same periods and conditions.
The rule is that the creditor may bring his action
in toto against any of the solidary debtors less the
shares of the other debtors with unexpired terms or
unfulfilled conditions who are entitled to defenses
under Article 1222. Upon the expiration of the term or
the fulfillment of the condition, the creditor will have
the right to demand the payment of the remainder.
However, the parties may stipulate that any
solidary debtor already bound may be made liable for
the entire obligation.
EXAMPLE:
A, B, C, and D obliged themselves solidarily to pay E
P20,000.00, as follows:
A, to pay by installment at the rate of P1,000.00 a
month, to start in July; B, to pay in September; C, to pay
in December; and D, if E passes the Bar examinations.
(a) In July, E can demand only P1,000.00 from A.
E can also make a demand from B, C, and/or D the
P1,000.00 share corresponding to A. But E cannot
recover yet the shares of B, C, and D which are not yet
due and demandable.
(b) In September, E is entitled to collect from
any of the solidary debtors the share corresponding to B
which is P5,000.00 and A, P1,000.00 or P3,000.00, if A
had not yet paid any installment. The shares of C and D
are not yet recoverable.
(c) In December, E can recover from any of the
solidary debtors, the share corresponding to C in the
amount of P5,000.00 plus such amounts from the
shares of A and B which have not yet been paid. The
share of D will mature only after E passes the Bar
examinations.
(d) If E passes the Bar examinations, the
obligation of D to pay P5,000.00 arises. This amount can
be demanded from any of the solidary debtors. Again, E
is also entitled to recover all amounts which are already
due and demandable and unpaid pertaining to the ART. 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the solidary
shares of A, B, and C. creditors; but if any demand, judicial or extrajudicial,
(e) If the agreement is that E may demand the has been made by one of them, payment should be
entire obligation from B in September, from C in made to him.
December, or from D if E passes the Bar examinations,
then B is liable for P20,000.00 in September less the
amount, if any, already paid by A and D; C is liable for
P20,000.00 in December less the amount, if any, already
paid by A, B, and D. D is liable for P20,000.00 if E passes
the Bar examinations less the amount, if any, already
paid by A, B, and C.

Joint obligation on one side, solidary on the other.

An obligation may be joint on the side of the
creditors and solidary on the side of the debtors, or vice
versa.
In such cases, the rules applicable to each
subject of the obligation should be applied, the
character of the creditors or the debtors determining
their respective rights and liabilities. Thus, if the
obligation is joint on the side of the creditors, and
solidary on the side of the debtors, each creditor can
demand only his share in the obligation; but each
debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation to
the creditors.

ART. 1212. Each one of the solidary creditors may do

whatever may be useful to the others, but not anything
which may be prejudicial to the latter.

Act of solidary creditor useful/ prejudicial to others.

A solidary creditor may do any act beneficial or
useful to the others but he cannot perform any act
prejudicial to them. If he performs such act and as a
result the obligation is extinguished, he shall be
responsible to the others for damages. As far as the
debtor or debtors are concerned, the act shall be valid
and binding.
The rule is based on the theory of mutual
agency among the solidary creditors. A joint creditor
cannot act in representation of the others.

EXAMPLE:
A owes B and C, solidary creditors, the sum of
P2,000.00. B may make a demand for the payment of
the obligation for this will benefit C. Under the law, the
prescription of action is interrupted when they are fi led
before the court. (Art. 1155.) So also, if B collects from
A, C will be benefited.
In case of remission or condonation effected by
B, the obligation will be extinguished but since C cannot
be prejudiced by the remission, B has to reimburse C for
the latter’s share. (Art. 1215)

ART. 1213. A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights

without the consent of the others.

Assignment by solidary creditor of his rights.

In the absence of consent given by the others, a
solidary creditor cannot assign his rights to a third
person. The reason behind this prohibition is that each
creditor represents the others and the assignee may not
have the confidence of the original solidary creditors
considering that the assignee after receiving payment
may not give the shares of the others. (see Art. 1178)
If the assignment is made to a co-creditor, the
consent of the other creditors is not necessary.