Chapter 3: Section 4 Problems

1. This case will fall under Article 1207, the situation has two or more debtors and one creditor.
It doesn’t stipulate whether the obligation was joint or solidary. Since the problem doesn’t
have any statements regarding solidary then it is presumed to be joint, the problem also states
that X, Y, and Z are liable to pay W in the amount of ₱30,000 we presumed to be divided
onto as many equal shares as there are debtors, so X, Y, and Z are liable of ₱10,000 each to
W. W is not entitled to collect from each debtor more than his corresponding share in
obligation, therefore W, cannot have the right to demand a full payment to Z because
only the corresponding portion or share of Z in the obligation is demandable which is
₱10,000 only because they are a joint obligation. 

2. This case will fall under Article 1217, which is about solidary obligation. (a) the payment
of X gives him the right to collect from Y and Z only the share which corresponds to
them, which is ₱ 10,000 each. (b) X is not entitled to reimbursement of interest because
he made a payment on September 9, which is before the due date of the debt. (c) If Z is
insolvent, both X and Y shall bear his insolvency in portion to their shares. Since the
obligation is solidary, the obligation of one will be the obligation of all, it is all for one
and one for all. X can still ask Y to pay an additional sum of ₱ 5,000. The full payment
of Y will be ₱ 15,000.  

3. (a) The situation will fall under Article 1212 and 1215, each one of the solidary creditors
may do whatever may be useful to the others, but not anything which may be prejudice
to the latter. Creditor C can condone the debts without the consent of B, the obligation
will be extinguished but since B cannot be prejudice by the remission or condonation, C
has to reimburse B for his corresponding shares. (b) According to Article 1213, a
solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of others. Therefor C
cannot assign his rights without B’s consents. But when the assignment is made to a co-
creditor, the consent of the other creditors is not necessary. 

4. This problem is under Article 1216, the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary
debtors or some or all of them. Since A, B, and C are solidary liable to D, D has the right to
demand payment to any of them. C cannot or doesn’t have the right to demand that A
and B be also included as party defendants because their obligation is solidary, it means
the obligation of one is the obligation of all. C is liable to the full payment to D, C will
just ask to reimburse the corresponding shares of A and B.  
 
5. The situation here will fall under the Article 1221, since A, B and C are solidary
debtors, the fault of C will be the fault of all. We need to remember that in solidary
obligation, the obligation is for all the partners. A and B shall be also responsible to D,
for the price of the equipment and damages even though A and B were not at fault.
However, A and B can recover from C, the negligent debtor, the full amount such price,
and damages. If C pays the price and damages in full, he has no right to ask
reimbursement of what he paid to A and B.