CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts.

1207-1222)

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.

35

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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

Debtors duty

Creditors claim

Individual Creditor

D1
D2

P10,000.00
P10,000.00

P20,000.00

Total liability

P20,000.00

P20,000.00

Total claim

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
Debtor

Debtors duty

Creditors claim

Joint Creditors

P20,000.00

P10,000.00
P10,000.00

C1
C2

Total liability

P20,000.00

P20,000

Total claim

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 Debtors

Debtors duty

Creditors claim

Joint Creditors

D1

P10,000.00
P10,000.00

P5,000.00
P5,000.00
P5,000.00
P5,000.00

C1
C2
C1
C2

D2
Total liability

P20,000.00

P20,000.00

Total claim

36

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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

Debtors duty

D1
D2
Total liability

P10,000.00
P10,000.00
P20,000.00

Creditors claim
P20,000.00
P20,000.00

Solidary Creditors
C1
C2
Total claim

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

Debtors duty

Creditors claim

Joint Creditors

D1
D2

P20,000.00

P10,000.00
P10,000.00

C1
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
37

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 Debtors

Debtors duty

Creditors claim

Solidary Creditors

D1
D2

P20,000.00

P20,000.00

C1
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 :

Kinds of
Solidarity
According to
Source :

5.

(a) Conventional when the contracting parties expressly

agree and stipulate that the obligation is solidary.
(b) Legal when the law demands solidarity.
(c) Real when the nature of the obligation requires the
liability to be solidary.

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]

38

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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)

39

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

(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
40

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 latters 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
41

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 C2s 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 latters designated shares in the debt which is
P250,000.00 and P200,000.00, respectively. What will happen if only D2 reimburses D1,
42

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 D2s 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?
Solvent
Debtors

Proportionate
Share in the
Debt

Reimbursement Share in
the Insolvent Debtors
Share

D1

150,000.00

150,000/400,000 = 3/8

D2

250,000.00

250,000/400,000 = 5/8

TOTAL

400,000.00

8/8

Insolvent
Debtors
Share

Proportionate Share to be
Borne by the Solvent Debtors
(Art. 1217, par. 3)
3/8 of P200,000 = P 75,000

P200,000.00
TOTAL

5/8 of P200,000 = P125,000

P200,000.00

So, if D3 becomes insolvent, D2 has to reimburse D1 his proportionate share in the entire
debt (which is P250,000.00), plus D2s 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 D2s 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
43

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

and C2. In such a case, D2 has no obligation to reimburse D1 for the P30,000.00 of D2s
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 latters 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 Cs intention to remit D1s
proportionate share, C, in behalf of D1, may reimburse D2 for D1s 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.

44

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

(d.3.1.) Can D1, after having paid for the entire debt, ask for reimbursement
from D3 for the latters 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 codebtor 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 D3s 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 D1s refusal to pay the balance, C filed a
case against D1 for collection of the amount. Will Cs 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
45

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 creditors 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 D2s 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 codebtor.
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
46

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 codebtors 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 D1s share (P100,000.00). This is
because D2 can also put up D1s insanity, which is merely personal to D1, as a
partial defense. In other words, D2 can avail of D1s defense but only for the purpose
47

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

of disclaiming liability for D1s 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 Kikos
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: Jonas 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 Larrys 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
48

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 Juans
proposal, and immediately went to Clara asking reimbursement for her (Claras)
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 Marks proportionate share of P100,000.00. Do you agree with Marks
contention? In other words, can Mark ask for reimbursement from Paul in the amount of
P300,000.00?
49

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 Dianas 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 Caloys share in
the credit in the amount of P300,000.00. Does Caloys 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 Matts 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
50

CHAPTER III, SECTION 4 Joint and Solidary Obligations (Arts. 1207-1222)

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 selfcontrol, 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

51