Eh 401 SG Mod 3 Complete Oblicon Rev Trans

CIVIL LAW REVIEW | OBLICON TRANS | ATTY.
MBL | AY 2022-2023
________________________________________________________________________________________________
pay without waiting for the arrival of a
period.
MODULE 3
DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBLIGATION
Q: What is a conditional obligation?
I. PURE AND CONDITIONAL A: An obligation that is dependent upon the

OBLIGATIONS happening or non-happening of a future and
uncertain event (condition).
Q: What is a pure obligation?
Remember, that both must be present – that
ARTICLE 1179. Every obligation whose the event must be: (1) future and (2)
performance does not depend upon a uncertain or unknown.
future or uncertain event, or upon a past
even unknown to the parties, is EXAMPLE:
demandable at once.
“I will give you P 500,000 if your pet dog
A: An obligation whose fulfillment is not dies”
dependent upon a future and uncertain
event (condition) or a past event unknown to Q: Is this a condition? Is this a future and
the parties. uncertain event?
This means that the obligation is A: The answer is NO. Although it is set at a
demandable at once. future event, death is certain to happen.
EXAMPLE: Q: How then do you call an obligation that

is dependent on a FUTURE and CERTAIN
“I will pay you P 500,000.” event?
Your payment of the P500,000 is not A: It is called an obligation with a period.

dependent upon a condition. It does not
depend on something else happening for
me to pay you P500,000.
ARTICLE 1181. In conditional obligations, the
A pure obligation is characterized by its acquisition of rights, as well as the
immediate demandability. In other words, extinguishment or loss of those already
the person whom you have promised to pay acquired, shall depend upon the happening
the P500,000 (in the example) can of the event which constitutes the condition.
immediately demand from you the
payment. He can immediately compel you to
________________________________________________________________________________________________
EH 401 SUPPORT GROUP TRANS | Alegre - Alonzo - Arnaez - Arriesgado - Avestruz - Cabanlit - Cabase - Castilla -
Castillo - Cu -Descallar - Elizaga - Evangelista - Gregorio - Hamoy- Lanterna - Lee - Lim - Nacua - Pellero - Tejero -Wee
1
CIVIL LAW REVIEW | OBLICON TRANS | ATTY. MBL | AY 2022-2023
________________________________________________________________________________________________
A: This provision basically provides that the EXAMPLE NO. 2:
acquisition of right by virtue of the obligation “I will give you a P20,000 monthly allowance
or the extinguishment of the rights already until you pass the 2022 Bar Examinations.”
acquired, also by virtue of the obligation is
dependent upon the happening of a future In this example, the condition (passing the
and uncertain event (condition). 2022 Bar Examinations) is still a future and
uncertain event. However, the happening of
I will give two (2) examples of when the the event will EXTINGUISH my obligation.
happening of a condition will either give rise
to or cause the extinguishment of an Here, the condition is a resolutory condition.
obligation.
Q: What is a resolutory condition?
EXAMPLE NO. 1:
A: A condition, the happening of which, will
“I will give you P 500,000 if you pass the
EXTINGUISH the obligation. As opposed to a
bar examinations”
suspensive condition, the happening of
This is an example of a condition, the which will GIVE RISE to the obligation
happening of which, will give rise to an
In EXAMPLE NO. 1, passing the 2022 Bar
obligation.
Examinations is a future and uncertain
Q: What do we call this kind of condition? event, the happening of which will give rise
to my obligation to give you P5,000. Vis-à-vis
A: This is called a suspensive condition. It will EXAMPLE NO. 2, where the passing of the
hold in suspense the obligation until the 2022 Bar Examinations will extinguish my
happening of the condition. obligation to give you a P20,000 monthly
allowance.
In this example, I make that promise to give
you P5,000 if you pass the bar examinations So in EXAMPLE NO. 2, the happening of the
today, but my obligation has not arisen yet. event does not give rise to the obligation,
Because the future event (passing of the Bar because it is already there, instead it
examinations) has not come yet. terminates or extinguishes the obligation.
It is a condition because it is a future and an RECAP: What is the difference between

uncertain event. And it is a suspensive conditional and pure obligations?
condition because it holds in suspense, up ● In Conditional, the effectivity or
until the happening of the condition, my extinguishment of the obligation is
obligation to give. dependent upon the happening of a
future and uncertain event.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
________________________________________________________________________________________________
● In Pure, the obligation is demandable demandable or when it is extinguished or
at once and it is not dependent upon terminated.
any condition.
That first paragraph of article 1193 gives you
an example where the period determines
II. OBLIGATION WITH A PERIOD (PART the demandability of the obligation.
1)
Example: “I will give you 20,000 on
“PERIOD” is a FUTURE AND CERTAIN event. December 25, 2023”
As opposed to CONDITION, a condition is a This is a day that is certain to come in the

FUTURE AND UNCERTAIN EVENT. Period future. FUTURE and CERTAIN as it will
however is a future and CERTAIN event. In necessarily come. This is now an example of
obligations with a period, it is the arrival of a period the arrival of which will determine
this future and certain event that would the demandability of the obligation. When
bring about the demandability of an the said date arrives, the obligee can
obligation or its extinguishment. demand from the obligor the fulfillment of
the obligation.
Note that a condition is future and uncertain,
IOW, that event may or may not happen RESOLUTORY PERIOD
while a period is certain to happen. That is
why we say that a period is future and Article 1193 Par. (2) "obligations with a
certain. resolutory period take effect at once but
terminate at the arrival of the day certain."
Obligations with a period may be”
● Suspensive
● Resolutory
This time, it says that the arrival of the period
SUSPENSIVE PERIOD will now extinguish the obligation. IOW, the
obligation is already there and the arrival of
the period will terminate or extinguish the
Article 1193 Par. 1 "obligations for whose
obligation.
fulfillment a day certain has been fixed shall
be demandable only when that day
Example: “I will give you 10,000 monthly
comes."
allowance until December 31, 2024.”
The period in an obligation with a period In this example, the obligation is

determines whether the obligation becomes demandable at once. It takes effect at once.
That obligation will end upon the arrival of
________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
________________________________________________________________________________________________
the period and in that example, the period ● Conventional - as agreed by the
was set at Dec. 31, 2024. parties
● Legal - provided for by law
Remember the 2 examples given. ● Judicial - it is the court who has
decided upon the period.
● Example (1) obligation to give 20k on
Dec. 25, 2023 - the period will affect THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING AN
the demandability of the obligation. It OBLIGATION WITH A PERIOD:
triggers its demandability. This is
called a SUSPENSIVE PERIOD as the Example: you borrowed 50k from a friend.
arrival of such period will make the Both of you agreed that you will pay 2 years
obligation demandable. from today. A year from now, you paid him
● Example (2) obligation to give 10k the 50k thinking that 2 years had already
monthly allowance until Dec. 31, 2024 - lapsed. However, the debt was not yet due
the period is a RESOLUTORY PERIOD and demandable based on the agreement
because the arrival of the period will but you insisted on paying anyway.
extinguish the obligation. IOW, in this
example, the obligation became Because both of you agreed that it will be
demandable at once (2nd par. of 1193) paid two (2) years from today. But you paid
when the period arrives, the obligation one (1) year from today.
to give a 10k monthly allowance will
cease, it will now be extinguished. Q: What are the consequences of such?
Can you still get back the money you paid
The discussion above discusses the 2 ways of in advance once you realized that your
classifying the period. There are other ways debt was, in fact, not yet due?
of classifying a period such as whether the
period is DEFINITE or INDEFINITE. A: The answer is yes. You can actually get
back the money that you paid.
● Definite - day certain, exact date or
period (Ex. 1 year from today) Q: Why?
● Indefinite - in the future, unknown as
to when but is certain to happen (Ex. A: Because the period has not arrived yet. In
When my pet dies, because death is that example, the period was set two years
certain) from today and yet you paid one year early.
Another way of classifying the period is

That is basically your Article 1195 which says:
ACCORDING TO ITS SOURCE:
ARTICLE 1195. Anything paid or delivered

________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
________________________________________________________________________________________________
before the arrival of the period, the obligor

Q: Now, supposing you realized that you
being unaware of the period or believing
made an advance payment on the day that
that the obligation has become due and
is due and demandable? (What if you
demandable, may be recovered with the
realized that you prematurely paid only
fruits and interests.
on the day that the obligation become
due and demandable?) In other words, as I
Remember, however, that recovery can be have mentioned, you paid 1 year in
done if the obligor or the person who paid. advance. But then you realized that such
advance payment 2 years from the time
In our example, you paid the P50,000 that you promised. It’s already due and
believing that it was already due because if demandable. Can you still recover the
you were aware that you were paying your money?
debt in advance, then, Article 1195 cannot be
applied. You can no longer get the money A: Not anymore.
that you paid because you were aware that
you were paying in advance. Q: Why?
Remember, that the recovery of the amount A: Because the debt is already due and
that you paid, if you were truly unaware or if demandable. You can no longer get it back.
you truly believed that it was actually already (You can no longer recover the money paid
due and demandable, and then, two months because it has already become due and
after the payment you realized, “Oh! I paid demandable, but you can still recover the
early. I want to get the money back.” interest.)
Yes, you can get the money back. In fact, you Q: But how about the fruits and interests?
can also get the interest from the advance
payment. A: Yes, you may recover.
Q: But when do you start and stop Q: Now, when do you start counting the
computing the interest? interest?
A: You start counting the interest from the A: From the time that you wrongfully paid in
time you wrongly paid up to the time that advance up to the time that the debt was
you will get back the advance payment. (You due. (Interest will start from the time of
start counting the interest from the time of wrongful payment until the due date.)
premature payment up to the time that you
recover the premature payment.) Let’s also look into Article 1196.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q: Why do we say that is for the benefit of
ARTICLE 1196. Whenever in an obligation a both?
period is designated, it is presumed to have
been established for the benefit of both the A: Because if we were to allow the debtor to
creditor and the debtor, unless from the compel the creditor to accept payment prior
tenor of the same or other circumstances it to the arrival of the period, then you will be
should appear that the period has been depriving the creditor of interest. If you cut
established in favor of one or of the other. short the period of the payment, then it will
deprive the creditor of interest. So that
period is supposed to benefit both the
Q: What does this mean?
debtor and the creditor.
A: This mean that when there is a period,

In the same way, your creditor cannot
that period is supposed to benefit both the
compel the debtor to pay before the period.
debtor and the creditor.
Q: Why?
Illustration:
A: Because the debtor may not be ready to
pay yet before the period. Nor can the
Let me give you an example.
creditor compel the debtor to pay after the
period because it may be burdensome on
A (debtor) and B (creditor) agreed that A will
the part of the debtor as it will also
pay back his loan or debt of P100,000 to B on
accumulate interest.
August 5, 2025. The period is August 5, 2025.
So that is what is meant by a period. The
Article 1195 tells you that that period is
presumption of such is for the benefit of
supposed to benefit both A and B.
both the debtor and the creditor.
Q: What does that mean?

Exception to the General Rule (Article 1196,
last sentence)
A: This means that A (debtor) cannot compel
B (creditor) to accept payment before
Just like any general rule, there is an
August 5, 2025. In the same manner, B
exception. Article 1196 tells you of that
(creditor) cannot compel A (debtor) to make
exception:
payment before or after the arrival of the
period.
ARTICLE 1196. xxx when from the tenor of
the obligation, it is clear that the period was
________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
________________________________________________________________________________________________
In other words, if the obligation is on or
created for the benefit of just one party.
before a certain period, that obligation with a
period, that period is actually beneficial to
Illustration: the debtor. (If an obligation is due on or
before a certain period, then the period is for
Let me give you an example. the benefit of the DEBTOR.)
A (debtor) and B (creditor) agreed that A will This is an exception to the general rule.
pay his debt of P50,000 to B on or before
August 5, 2025. III. OBLIGATION WITH A PERIOD (PART
2)
Q: With that agreement, the period of on
or before August 5, 2025, who do you think INSTANCES WHERE THE DEBTOR LOSES
is the period for? Who do you think will THE BENEFIT OF THE PERIOD
benefit from that period?
GR: When an obligation is with a period, the
A: That period actually benefits the debtor. period is supposed to benefit both the
debtor and the creditor; that is in fact Article
Q: Why the debtor? 1196, NCC.
A: Because this time, the debtor has an XPN: There are instances under NCC when
option to pay when the period arrives the debtor loses the benefit of the period.
(August 5, 2025) or to pay prior to that period.
(The debtor has an option to either pay Q. What do we mean then when we say
when the period arrives or to pay before the that the debtor will lose the benefit of the
period arrives.) period?
The debtor can compel the creditor to GR: When you say that you have the benefit
accept the advance payment. The debtor of the period as the debtor, you cannot be
can compel the creditor to accept payment compelled to pay before the arrival of the
before August 5, 2025. period.
However, the creditor cannot compel the Example: If the agreement was for the
debtor to make payment before August 5, debtor to pay the debt two years from today
2025. The creditor has to wait for the period then that debtor cannot be compelled to pay
to arrive to be able to compel payment. before the arrival of that date which is two
years from today. That is the benefit. In the
same way, the
________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
________________________________________________________________________________________________
the creditor cannot be compelled by the
impaired said guaranties or
debtor to accept payment before the arrival
securities after their establishment,
of that period that they agreed.
and when through a fortuitous event
they disappear, unless he
XPN: NCC provides for enumeration where
immediately gives new ones equally
the debtor can lose the benefit.
satisfactory;
4. When the debtor violates any
Meaning: Debtor can be compelled by the
undertaking, in consideration of
creditor to pay his debt even prior to the
which the creditor agreed to the
arrival of the period.
period;
5. When the debtor attempts to
Example: X is the debtor. Y is the creditor. X
abscond
and Y agreed that X will pay his debt on
January 5, 2024.
XPNs:
In applying the GR under Art. 1196, X cannot
be (1) When after the obligation has been
compelled by y to pay before January 5, contracted, he becomes insolvent, unless
2024. he gives a guaranty or security for the
debt.
That is the benefit of debtor that he cannot
be compelled to pay before the arrival of the After he became indebted to the creditor, if it
period is found that he is now insolvent, meaning
he has more debts than he has assets, the
Q. When then will he lose the benefit of creditor can now demand the debtor to pay
the period? his debt even before the arrival of the period.
XPN to XPN: Unless the debtor can give a

ART 1198, NCC. The debtor shall lose every
security or a guarantee.
right to make use of the period:
1. When after the obligation has been
If he cannot give a guarantee or security
contracted, he becomes insolvent,
then the creditor can now go after the
unless he gives a guaranty or
debtor even before the arrival of the period.
security for the debt;
2. When he does not furnish to the
The creditor need not wait for the arrival of
creditor the guaranties or securities
the period to demand the debtor to pay.
which he has promised;
3. When by his own acts he has
________________________________________________________________________________________________
8
________________________________________________________________________________________________
(2) When he does not furnish to the
creditor the guaranties or securities that So if X originally executed a mortgage over
he has promised. his house which is destroyed by a typhoon, Y
can demand payment prior to the arrival of
In our example, if X did in fact make a the period, even though the loss of the
promise to Y to give a guaranty or security, security was due to a fortuitous event. So, X
like a real estate mortgage to secure his debt should furnish another security equal to the
with Y, Y can demand the payment of the house if he does not want to pay.
debt even before the arrival of the period,
January 5, 2024. (4) When the debtor violates any
undertaking in consideration of which the
(3) When by his own acts he has impaired creditor agreed to the period.
said guaranties or securities after their
establishment, and when through a This is par. 4 of Art. 1198. In our example, if
fortuitous event, they disappear, unless he there was an agreement that there will be
immediately gives new ones equally payment of interest every month, and X fails
satisfactory. to pay the interest, that is a violation of the
undertaking and Y can now demand the full
Par. 3 of Art. 1198 will tell you that it does not payment of the obligation even before the
matter whether the guaranty or security arrival of the period, January 5, 2024.
promised was lost through a fortuitous event
or through fault of the debtor. (5) When the debtor attempts to abscond.
In our example, if X promised to Y to execute This is another instance when the creditor
a mortgage over his house to secure his debt can demand payment even before the arrival
and, through negligence of X, the house was of the period.
razed by fire, or even if by typhoon without
fault of X, Y can now demand the payment of The creditor should not be made to wait until
the debt even before the arrival of the period. the debtor is successful in evading payment.
If the creditor receives information that the
The law is clear; it does not matter whether debtor is attempting to abscond, then he
the guaranty or security that he has can compel the debtor to pay even before
promised is lost either by the fault of the arrival of the date agreed upon, January 4,
debtor or by a fortuitous event. The creditor 2024.
can demand the payment prior to the arrival
of the period. If the debtor does not want to IV. ALTERNATIVE OBLIGATIONS
pay, then he must furnish another guaranty
or security equally satisfactory.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alternative obligation is an obligation
The creditor cannot be compelled to
where there are several objects or receive part of one and part of the other
presentations that are due, but such undertaking. (1131)
obligation may be complied with by the
fulfillment of one of the objects or prestation.
Example: General Rule:
Betty obliged herself to deliver either a So in our example, Betty cannot compel the
particular car worth 300,000 or cash 300,000 creditor to receive 150,000 cash and the
or a diamond ring worth 300, 000. Here you 150,000 car because the law says that it
have an obligation where several prestation should be the delivery of either one of the
or objects which are due. Either she may be prestations or objects that are due. It cannot
deliver the car worth 300,000 or cash be part of one and a part of another that is
300,000 or a diamond ring worth 300, 000. article 1199.
So three objects are due.
Effects: Exception:
However, the delivery of either of those Of course, if the creditor would agree or
objects would be enough to comply with the would accept to receiving a part of one
obligation. Where there are several objects undertaking and a part of another then that
that are due, but it is enough that only one is there would be no problem with respect to
being delivered to fulfill the obligation. that
In that example, can Betty choose to deliver However what the law tells you is that the
150,000 pesos cash and also a second-hand debtor in our example, Betty, cannot compel
car worth 150,000 equaling still the value of the creditor to receive a part of one and a
part of the other because the obligation of
300,000 pesos?
Betty is that she should deliver either of the
three that she has promised.
The answer is no. And we find the legal basis
for that under Article 1199 of your civil code. That is basically what an alternative
obligation is all about.
Art. 1199. A person alternatively bound by Who has the right to choose which
different prestations shall completely prestation will be fulfilled or which object
perform one of them. will be delivered by the debtor?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The law tells you that the right of choice Here you have three prestations or three
belongs to the debtor objects that are due
While Betty may have the right to choose

Art. 1200 The right of choice belongs to
which of the three I mentioned that she will
the debtor unless it has been expressly
deliver the law does not allow her to choose
granted to the creditor
the last presentation or the last object that is
due and that is the one kilo of shabu.
The debtor shall have no right to
choose those prestations which are
impossible unlawful or which could not
Why?
have been the object of the obligation
Because that is unlawful.
Again, The debtor has the right of choice

In our previous example, Betty has now the but the debtor cannot choose those
right to choose which of the prestations she prestations that are:
will fulfill. 1. Impossible
2. Unlawful; or
Either she will deliver that particular car 3. which could not have been the object
worth 300,000 or she will deliver the 300,000 of the obligation
cash or if she will deliver the 300,000 peso
worth diamond ring When does that choice have any effect?
Remember: It is only when the debtor has

GR: communicated such choice to the creditor.
The debtor has the right of choice
EXPN: Unless if they have agreed that the
creditor will have the right to choose from
Art. 1201 The choice shall produce no
which prestations he will be asking the
effect except from the time it has been
debtor to deliver.
communicated
Now let's talk about that second Paragraph
of Article 1200 where the law says that yes Is there a particular form of
the debtor has the right of choice but he communication of the choice?
cannot choose those prestations which are there is no particular form.
impossible or which are unlawful or which It could be:
could not have been the object of the 1. in writing; or
obligation. 2. verbally
Example: So long as the debtor has communicated or

Betty obliged herself to deliver a particular has informed the creditor of his choice as to
car or a particular diamond ring or one kilo of what prestation or object he has chosen to
dangerous trunks or of shabu deliver his obligation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
11
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Articles 1202-1205 talk about scenarios where
obligation by delivering that which the
there are several prestations that are due but creditor should choose from among the
one or 2 or more of the prestations are no remainder, or that which remains if only
longer practicable to be delivered. one subsists;
(2) If the loss of one of the things occurs

Art. 1202. The debtor shall lose the right of through the fault of the debtor, the
choice when among the prestations creditor may claim any of those subsisting,
whereby he is alternatively bound, only one or the price of that which, through the fault
is practicable. (1134) of the former, has disappeared, with a right
to damages;
Art. 1203. If through the creditor's acts the
debtor cannot make a choice according to (3) If all the things are lost through the fault
the terms of the obligation, the latter may of the debtor, the choice by the creditor
rescind the contract with damages. (n) shall fall upon the price of any one of them,
also with indemnity for damages.
Art. 1204. The creditor shall have a right to
indemnity for damages when, through the The same rules shall be applied to
fault of the debtor, all the things which are obligations to do or not to do in case one,
alternatively the object of the obligation some or all of the prestations should
have been lost, or the compliance of the become impossible. (1136a)
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 GR: right of choice belongs to debtor
last became impossible. XPN: they agree otherwise
Damages other than the value of the last

thing or service may also be awarded.
(1135a)
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

Loss of some or one of the objects or all in an
shall be governed by the following rules:
alternative obligation can be caused either
(1) If one of the things is lost through a by FE or fault of the debtor.
fortuitous event, he shall perform the
________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fortuitous event negligence of the debtor? (right of the
● If all objects are lost, and it caused by a choice belonging to the debtor)
FE, the obligation of the debtor is
extinguished.
Illustration
A promised to deliver a particular
car/motorcycle, if all is lost due to typhoon
which is a FE and destroyed beyond repair,
then the obligation of A is extinguished.
● If only one/some/is are lost, due to a Q: What are the consequences if the all of
FE the debtor may choose from the the objects are lost due to the negligence
remainder or remaining objects. or fault of the debtor?
Illustration A: Obligation is not extinguished, unlike

If Betty has promised to deliver a particular when the loss is due to fortuitous event. The
car or a particular motorcycle or a particular obligation, however, is converted to
yacht, and the yacht was destroyed by a monetary liability.
supertyphoon and you still have the car and
motorcycle, since the loss of the yacht was How do you put a value to the liabilities since
due to a FE, then Betty can still choose from it is now a monetary liability?
what remains. - It should be the value of the object
which last disappeared.
Supposing, in the same example, what was
destroyed by the typhoon would be the Why? Since the right of choice belongs to
yacht and the car, hence, there is only the the debtor, even if the debtor has destroyed
motorcycle. This now is converted into a one of the objects that are due, he will
simple obligation. Then, Betty will have no always have the remainder to choose from.
choice but to deliver what is left i.e.,
motorcycle. – those are the consequences if Going back to the example… the choice
there is loss of one of the objects or of some between a particular car, particular
of the objects or of all of the objects and the motorcycle and particular yacht, even if the
loss is caused by a fortuitous events. car was lost due to the recklessness of the
debtor, since the right of choice belongs to
How about if the loss of the one of the him, hence, he always have the other two to
objects, or of some of the objects, or of all choose from i.e., particular yacht and
of the objects was caused by the fault or particular motorcycle.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
13
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Even if the motorcycle would be lost due to

his fault or negligence, he will always have
the yacht to deliver.
If the yacht was lost due to his fault or

negligence when he could have delivered
that, so, the value of the monetary liability
should depend at the value of the object
which last disappeared.
TN: Since the lost of all the objects are due to If the particular car is lost due to his
the fault or negligence of the debtor, recklessness, he can always choose from the
creditor can claim damages. particular motorcycle or the particular yacht.
He can choose either of the two to deliver. If
If only one or some of the objects that are there's only one that remains because all the
due were lost due to the negligence or fault others were lost due to his negligence, then
of the debtor, the debtor can choose what that one that has remained will now be the
remains. object that will be delivered. These are the
rules under Article 1205 - If there is loss, and
RIGHT OF CHOICE BELONGS TO DEBTOR the right of choice belongs to the debtor.
RIGHT OF CHOICE BELONGS TO CREDITOR
Q: Now, how about if there is loss, but the

right choice belongs to the creditor
because they agreed that it shall belong to
the creditor, would the consequences be
the same?
A: No, some consequences are not all the

same but there are some that are similar.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
14
________________________________________________________________________________________________
So the difference now is just the one who is
choosing which prescription is to be
delivered. This time it's your creditor who will
choose because they have agreed that the
creditor will have the right of choice.
If some of the prescriptions are lost and only

one remains then of course it will be
converted into a simple obligation and
therefore that will be the one which will be
delivered by the debtor to the creditor. So
going back to our example, if the particular
So again, the loss can be caused by a car and the particular motorcycle are lost,
fortuitous event, or by the fault or negligence perhaps due to an earthquake, then you
of the debtor. have the particular yacht that can be
delivered. So it is converted into a simple
So let's take a look at when losses are caused obligation.
by a fortuitous event. If all of the objects are
lost rather due to a fortuitous event, then Q: Now, if the loss is due to the fault or
the obligation is extinguished because again, negligence of the debtor what will happen
as we said, loss that is caused by a fortuitous now? What would be the consequences if
event will extinguish an obligation because it all of the options are lost due to the fault
is not the debtor’s fault that the prestations or negligence of the debtor?
are lost. Now, if one or some of the objects
are lost, due to a fortuitous event, what A: The creditor can choose any of the objects
happens now, the creditor can still choose and have the debtor pay for the value of the
from the remainder or the creditor can object that he has chosen.
choose from what remains because he has
the right of choice. If all of the objects are lost due to the fault or
negligence of the debtor, then the creditor
So again, we go back to our examples, if the can choose any of the objects and have the
presentations are: (1) that particular car; (2) debtor pay for the value of the object that he
the particular motorcycle and (3) particular has chosen.
yacht. If the particle yacht gets lost or gets
wrecked due to a typhoon then the creditor Example: There is a particular car, a
can choose from either the motorcycle or the particular motorcycle, and a particular yacht.
car. The creditor can choose from any of the
objects - and whatever object that he has
________________________________________________________________________________________________
15
________________________________________________________________________________________________
chosen, the debtor will have to pay him the Note: Remember that these rules on laws
value of such object. apply only to particular/specific things
because generic things are never lost.
Q: What if not all of the objects are lost due
to the fault or negligence of the debtor? So, if there are prestations that are generic
and there are prestations that are specific -
A: Since the right of choice belongs to the then the specific things may be lost, but
creditor, then he can still choose any of the there will always be a generic thing that will
objects. remain.
If, however, the object chosen was already Example: If the prestations that are due are a
lost due to the fault or negligence of the particular diamong ring, a particular car, and
debtor - the creditor will be paid the value of Php 1,000,000.00 - even if the particular
such object + damages. prestations are lost due to a fortuitous event
(diamond ring and car), obligation is not
However, if the creditor chooses the object extinguished because you have a generic
that is still there (not lost - still exists), then thing that is due.
the debtor will deliver such object.
If it caused by the fault/negligence of the
Q: In this case, will the debtor still be liable debtor, there is still one prestation that is left
for damages? to be chosen from - either it be the choice of
the debtor or the creditor.
A: No, because the creditor has chosen the
object that still exists and that is not lost.
V. DIVISIBLE AND INDIVISIBLE
OBLIGATIONS
When we talk about divisible and indivisible

obligations, we should be careful not to
confuse this with solidary obligations. Your
divisible and indivisible obligations are
covered by Articles 1223-1225 of your Civil
Code, while your joint and solidary
obligations are covered by Articles 1207-1222
of your Civil Code.
So, that’s basically what Article 1202 to Article
1205 is telling you.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
16
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1223. The divisibility or indivisibility of

the things that are the object of obligations indivisible if so provided by law or intended
in which there is only one debtor and only by the parties.
one creditor does not alter or modify the
In obligations not to do, divisibility or
provisions of Chapter 2 of this Title. (1149)
indivisibility shall be determined by the
character of the prestation in each
When you look at your Civil Code, Chapter 2 particular case. (1151a)
actually covers joint and solidary obligations.
What Article 1223 is telling you is that when
you classify your obligation as divisible or Article 1225 actually gives you a definition or
indivisible, it does not change that such a guide as to how to determine whether
obligation may be joint or solidary. your obligation is divisible or indivisible.
It basically means that when we classify an The first paragraph of Article 1225 tells you
obligation as joint or solidary, it actually that if the obligation is to give definite
refers to the tie between the parties. When things, and such things cannot be physically
we talk about the obligation being divisible divided, then the obligation is indivisible.
or indivisible, that does not refer to the tie Another principle that your Article 1225,
that binds the parties but it refers to the paragraph 1 is also telling you is that for
nature of the obligation. obligations to do or in rendering a service or
performance of a service, it also can be
classified as either divisible or indivisible. And
Article 1225. For the purposes of the if it is not capable of partial performance,
preceding articles, obligations to give then it is considered as an indivisible
definite things and those which are not obligation.
susceptible of partial performance shall be
deemed to be indivisible. The second paragraph of Article 1225 tells
you that if the obligation is to do something
When the obligation has for its object the or it is rendering of a service, then it will be
execution of a certain number of days of considered divisible if it can be accomplished
work, the accomplishment of work by by days of work or there is the
metrical units, or analogous things which accomplishment in metrical units, because
by their nature are susceptible of partial then there is a measure of how you can
performance, it shall be divisible. divide the work. So you treat it as a divisible
obligation.
However, even though the object or service
may be physically divisible, an obligation is
________________________________________________________________________________________________
17
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Basically, when you look at the first two
who may have been ready to fulfill their
paragraphs of Article 1225, it tells you that to
promises shall not contribute to the
determine whether the obligation is
indemnity beyond the corresponding
divisible or indivisible, you look at the
portion of the price of the thing or of the
OBJECT of the obligation. If it is the giving
value of the service in which the obligation
of a definite thing, then you consider it as
consists. (1150)
indivisible. If the obligation is to perform or
render a service or an obligation to do, then
it would depend on whether it can be This now brings a situation where the
accomplished by a number of days of work obligation is an indivisible one, but the tie
or it can be measured by metrical units, between the parties is a joint one. When we
because if it can, then it is divisible. If it can’t, talk about it being joint or solidary, that
then it is indivisible. refers to the tie between the parties while
when we talk about it being divisible or
The third paragraph of Article 1225 gives an indivisible, we actually look into the object of
exception. Here, we have the (1) parties the obligation. Article 1224 brings about an
treating a divisible object as an indivisible obligation that is joint but indivisible — a
one. So they are bound by that treatment or joint indivisible obligation.
agreement, or if (2) the law treats it as
indivisible. An example of an object or a Your Article 1224 is actually very much
thing that can be treated by the parties as related to Article 1209 of the Civil Code that
indivisible is MONEY. Money is clearly talks about joint and solidary obligations.
divisible — it can be divided. But if the parties
agree to treat it as indivisible, then so be it. Again, when we talk about it being joint or
Contracts or agreements between the solidary, it talks about the tie between the
parties have the force of law between them, parties, and very basic is the principle in a
and they are bound by that agreement. joint obligation where we say that the
These are the two exceptions for when debtors are on its own.
divisible obligations which by nature are
actually divisible, are treated as indivisible by In other words, if one of the debtors
the parties either by their agreement or becomes insolvent, the other debtors will not
because the law treats it as indivisible. be liable for his share. That's why we have
that principle to each his own in joint
obligations, such that if one of the debtors
Article 1224. A joint indivisible obligation
would be in delay then the other debtors will
gives rise to indemnity for damages from
not be liable for damages as opposed to a
the time anyone of the debtors does not
solidary liability where the principle behind it
comply with his undertaking. The debtors
is the act of one is the act of all. So if one is
________________________________________________________________________________________________
18
________________________________________________________________________________________________
negligent or if one incurs delay, then all the
other solidarity debtors shall be liable for As I have already explained, if there is already
damages. a demand and you do not comply, then
there is already delay. If you are in delay, then
In article 1224, it speaks of an obligation you are liable for damages.
being joint. The principle behind the tie
between the debtors would now be to Question: If they cannot deliver the particular
each his own but the obligation is car because B refuses to comply with this
indivisible, meaning the nature of the object obligation can A be made liable rather for
of the obligation is indivisible. damages?
Example: A and B bound themselves jointly Article 1224 says the debtors who may have
to deliver a particular car to X. So A and B been ready to fulfill their promises shall not
now agreed that their liability is joined. contribute to the indemnity beyond the
In other words, the principle behind it is to corresponding portion of the price of the
each his own, if B becomes insolvent then A thing or of the value of the service in which
will not be burdened by his share. If B incurs the obligation consists.
delay, then A will not also be liable.
It tells you that A cannot be made liable for
Why is this example indivisible? damages because he was willing to comply
with the obligation. It shall only be B who
Because when you look at the object of the shall be liable for damages. Because it is an
obligation, it is the giving of a definite indivisible obligation and because one of the
thing that by nature cannot be divided and joint debtors is not willing to comply, then
that is the measure being given by article the delivery of that particular car cannot be
1225. So, A and B being bound or being liable done anymore.
to deliver a particular car to X, that is a joint
indivisible obligation. Question: What happens now to the
obligation?
Supposing the debt is now due and
demandable, and X now demands the The obligation becomes a monetary liability
delivery of that particular car. A is willing and because they can no longer deliver that
ready to comply with his obligation but B particular car since one of the debtors is
refuses to comply. Because there is already a unwilling. Article 1224 says that the debtor
demand that was made by X, it is now in who was willing shall only be liable to
incumbent upon A and B to deliver but then contribute to the corresponding portion of
again as I’ve mentioned A is willing to the price of the thing that they have
comply but B refuses to comply. promised.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
19
________________________________________________________________________________________________
affect the divisibility or the indivisibility of the
Let's say the car is worth two million, then he obligation.
is only liable to pay 1 million pesos, his share
in the joint obligation. But B on the other
hand, the one who refused to comply, shall VI. OBLIGATION WITH A PENAL CLAUSE
be liable to pay his corresponding portion
Obligation with a penal clause is covered by
which is also 1 million plus damages. That is
just five provisions of your civil code– that's
what is meant by Article 1224.
articles 1226- 1230.
The reason behind the law for not letting A

shoulder any part of the indemnity is An obligation with a penal clause is an
because the obligation is joint. Again, the obligation that has with it an accessory
principle behind a joint obligation is to each undertaking that tells the debtor that if he
his own. So there are as many debts as fails to comply with the obligation or what is
there are debtors. The debts of A are his, incumbent upon him or he fails to comply
while the debts of B are his. If B defaults in with his promise then he shall be liable for
his obligation, then A should not be the penalty.
punished for it. What do you think is the purpose of a
penalty? Why do parties to an obligation
That is the reason why A cannot be made agree to have a penalty? There are actually
liable for damages for the default that was three reasons behind
committed by B, it shall only be B who will having a penalty.
be liable for damages. But of course since A a. First is to ensure the performance of
obliged himself to deliver a particular car, the obligation
which now cannot be delivered because of B, How can a penalty ensure the
Article 1224 says it's okay just deliver the performance of an obligation? A
corresponding portion of the liability and penalty can ensure the performance
that is your share without paying damages. of an obligation because it
discourages the debtor from not
Another important thing to remember when fulfilling his obligation. Why does it
we talk about divisible and indivisible discourage the debtor? It discourages
obligations is that it is not required that if it's him because his obligation now
an indivisible obligation that there must only becomes more burdensome. There is
be one debtor or one creditor nor does it now another undertaking that he
require two or more debtors in a divisible must comply with because he failed to
obligation. When we talk about the number fulfill his obligation.
of debtors or creditors that would pertain to
it being joint or solidary but that does not
________________________________________________________________________________________________
20
________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Second is to liquidate the damages penalty so that he will not fulfill his
that is suffered by your injured party obligation.
due to the non-fulfillment of the XPN: If both the debtor and the creditor have
debtor of his obligation agreed that he can opt to just pay the
penalty without paying for or without
c. Third is to punish the debtor for failing fulfilling his obligation.
to comply with his obligation
Q: How about the creditor? Can he demand
Q: Can the debtor exempt himself from the for the fulfillment of the obligation plus the
payment or from the fulfillment of his payment of the penalty? The answer to that
obligation by telling the creditor that he will is still in article 1227
not pay because he will just pay the penalty?
The answer is in article 1227 of your civil code. A: “Neither can the creditor demand the
fulfillment of the obligation and the
satisfaction rather of the penalty at the same
time unless this right has been clearly
Article 1227. The debtor cannot exempt
granted him.” IOW, the general rule is that
himself from the performance of the
no he cannot demand for the fulfillment of
obligation by paying the penalty, save in
the obligation plus the penalty.
the case where this right has been
XPN: When the parties have agreed that he
expressly reserved for him. Neither can the
may do so.
creditor demand the fulfillment of the
obligation and the satisfaction of the
The last statement of article 1227 says,
penalty at the same time, unless this right
“however if after the creditor has decided to
has been clearly granted him. However, if
require the fulfillment of the obligation, the
after the creditor has decided to require the
performance thereof should become
fulfillment of the obligation, the
impossible without his fault, the penalty may
performance thereof should become
be enforced.” Here, this tells you that if it is
impossible without his fault, the penalty
without the fault of the creditor and the
may be enforced
obligation cannot anymore be fulfilled, then
it is his right to enforce the penalty.
A: The debtor cannot exempt himself from

the performance of the obligation by paying Q: Now supposing the debtor fails to fulfill his
the penalty– saving the case where this right obligation and now the creditor is not
has been expressly reserved for him. What enforcing the penalty as is his right to
does that mean.? This means that as a enforce it, can the debtor refuse to pay the
general rule, he cannot opt to just pay the penalty because the creditor could not show
________________________________________________________________________________________________
21
________________________________________________________________________________________________
proof that he suffered damage from the
failure to comply with the obligation by the Even if the penalty is agreed upon, the courts
debtor? may reduce it when:
A: No. This is under Art 1228. 1. Irregular or incomplete
fulfillment.
Art 1228. . Proof of actual damages suffered

Illustration
by the creditor is not necessary in order
Obligation to pay P50,000 but you were only
that the penalty may be demanded.
able to pay P30,000.
This means that what the creditor just needs If there is a penalty the courts may reduce it
to prove to enforce the penalty is that the because there was already partial
obliger or the debtor failed to comply with compliance.
his obligation. He need not offer proof that
he in fact suffered damages from the non- Illustration
fulfillment of the debtor. In fact, one of the Agreement to paint your house cream but
purposes or reasons why there is a penalty is the painter painted it green.
to liquidate the damages that the creditor
may have suffered. And that liquidation of There was compliance but it was irregularly
damages will already take the place of proof complied with. The penalty may also be
of actual damages that may be suffered by reduced by the court.
the creditor. So he need not prove damages
to enforce the penalty. 2. Penalty is iniquitous,
unconscionable, or shocking to
the conscience of men.
Now let's move on to article 1229. Your article
1229 gives you circumstances or instances Is there a standard yardstick to determine if
where the courts may reduce the penalty the penalty is unconscionable? No.
When are those circumstances? When you revisit cases on obligations with a
penal clause you will see that there is no
Art 1129. Civil Code. The judge shall
common standard measure.
equitably reduce the penalty when the
principal obligation has been partly or Why? Because it depends on the
irregularly complied with by the debtor. circumstances of each case. Each case is
Even if there has been no performance, the unique when you talk about penalties.
penalty may also be reduced by the courts
if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
22
________________________________________________________________________________________________
In one case the SC would decide that a 5% Illustration
monthly interest is unconscionable but in ● Principal Obligation- P100,000 debt
another case, it would say that it is not. It ● Penalty - sell prohibited drugs
really depends on the circumstances of each
case. The principal obligation, which is P100,000, is
a valid obligation. But the penalty (selling of
It will now have to be exercised with prohibited drugs) is VOID.
reasonable discretion by the court, looking
into the circumstance of the case. Will it affect the principal obligation? No.
Illustration
Art. 1230. Civil Code. The nullity of the penal
● Principal obligation - sell prohibited
clause does not carry with it that of the
drugs
principal obligation.
● Penalty - P100,000
The nullity of the principal obligation carries

Here the principal obligation is void - selling
with it that of the penal clause.
prohibited drugs.
The accessory follows the principal. The penalty, in itself, is valid because it is just
a payment of money. But Art. 1230 says if the
If the principal obligation is void, then the principal obligation is void, then the
accessory obligation is void. accessory penalty is also void.
In the reverse, If the accessory obligation is

void, it will not affect the principal obligation. VII. JOINT OBLIGATION AND SOLIDARY
OBLIGATION
Why is this principle important in the
discussion of Art. 1230?
Answer: Because a penal clause is an Art. 1207 The concurrence of 2 or more

creditors or of 2 or more debtors in one
accessory undertaking, it is an accessory
and the same obligation does not
obligation. Such that if the principal imply that each one of the former has
obligation is void, then the accessory penal a right to demand, or that each one of
clause/penalty is void. However if it is the the latter is bound to render, entire
reverse and it is the penal clause that is void, compliance with the prestations. There
it does not affect the principal obligation, it is a solidary liability only when the
subsists. obligation expressly so states, or when
the law or the nature of the obligation
________________________________________________________________________________________________
23
________________________________________________________________________________________________
requires solidarity. Reason: It is less burdensome.
There is only solidary obligation when:

1. only when the obligation expressly so
It is the concurrence of 2 or more debtors or states; or
2 or more creditors. 2. when the law; or
3. the nature of the obligation requires
It could be 2 or more debtors and one solidarity
creditor. It could be the reverse with 1 debtor
and 2 or more creditors. Or it could be the If it is not clear, choose the less burdensome
concurrence of 2 or more debtors and 2 or liability.
more creditors
It could be a concurrence of 2 or more
debtors or of 2 or more creditors.
Illustration (2 or more creditors)

Joint Solidary D is indebted to X & Y for P300,000.
There are as many The act of one is If joint - 2 obligations (D-X, D-Y)
debts as there are the act of all X can only demand 150,000 from D and Y can
debtors only demand 150,000
There are as many

Illustration (2 or more debtors)
credits as there are
creditors A is liable to B & C for P500,000
This is a joint obligation because there is no

stipulation that this is solidary.
There are several There is only one
debts debt If joint – 2 obligations (A-B, A-C)
There are as many debts as there are debtors
The first part of 1207 refers to Joint and credits as there are creditors.
Obligation because you are not expected to
comply with the entire prestation because Since this is a joint obligation, B & C can only
there are as many debts as there are debtors.
demand their proportionate share which is
The 2nd part talks about solidary obligation. P250,000 each.
GR: Joint obligation Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or
If there is nothing that implies solidarity then
the wording of the obligations to which
it is joint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
24
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contrary to solidary obligation = “All for
the preceding article refers the contrary
one, one for all”.
does not appear, the credit or debt shall
be presumed to be divided into as many
Illustration
shares as there are creditors or debtors,
the credits or debts being considered
A B and C made themselves liable and
distinct from one another, subject to the
promised to pay 120k to W X Y and Z.
Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of
suits. (1138a)
Q: How many debts do you see?
A: 12. Since, there are as many obligations as
if it is not expressly agreed on, or when the there are creditors and debtors.
law or nature of the obligation does not
require solidarity, it is presumed as joint. Obligations: A to W; A to X; A to Y; A to Z. B to
W; B to X; B to Y; B to Z… and so on.
Presumed as joint - the credit or debt shall
be presumed to be divided as many equal Discussion:
shares as there are creditors or debtors. The
credits or debts are distinct from one This is what it means when it says “each of
another subject to the rules governing the debtor will be liable only for the
multiplicity of suits. proportionate part of the debt; and the
creditor shall only claim of the proportionate
What principles do you find there? part of the credit”.
(Referring to the provision)
There are as many debts as there are debtors
- First, it is presumed joint if it does and creditors, because A’s liability is to W, to
not fall in any of the exceptions X, to Y and Z and so on with B and C which
expressly making it solidary, then gives you 12 obligations.
the default is i.e., it is joint.
Cont.
Again, in joint obligations the creditor is
entitled only to the proportionate part of the Q: Based on that, earlier we said it was 120k,
credit and the debtor is liable only to the how much then can W demand from A?
proportionate part of the debt.
A: 10k.
Principle behind joint obligation: “To each
of his own.” 120k divided by 4 = 30K on this side (referring
to the debtors)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
25
________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, A’s debt is 40k. 10k each to W, X, Y and Z. A: 60,000 from any of the debtors because of
(same process with B and C). their solidary relationship (In this example,
(lisod e put into words hehe) the only side where you have to divide is the
JOINT)
Q: So with that, what principle does that
tell you? Q: A, B, C (joint debtors) obliged themselves
to pay 120, 000 to Y and Z (solidary
A: That the debts and credits are considered creditors)? How much can Y demand from
separate and distinct from the other. One A?
debtor being liable to all four creditors. And
subject to the multiplicity of suits. A: Y can demand from A the amount of Php
40,000.00.
SOLIDARY OBLIGATION
- The principle behind is “one for all and Q: Why Php 40,000.00?
all for one”, meaning it is considered
as one obligation. A: In this case, it is because they are joint
debtors. Hence, you first have to divide the
Q: If A promises to pay 100,000 to Y and Z. entirety of the debt by the number of joint
How many obligations? debtors - in this case, three (3). So, each of
them only owes Php 40,000.00 to either Y or
A: One. Z.
Q: If that is one obligation, how much can Discussion: Again, we divide on the side
Y demand from A? where it’s joint. So, Y can demand only Php
40,000.00 from any of the debtors.
A: The entire 100,000. As opposed to joint
obligation where Y can only demand 50,000
Article 1209. If the division is impossible,
from A. the right of the creditors may be
prejudiced only by their collective acts, and
Q: A, B and C promised to pay 100,000 to Y the debt can be enforced only by
and Z. How much can Y demand from A? proceeding against all the debtors. If one of
the latter should be insolvent, the others
shall not be liable for his share.
A: The entire 100,000.
Q: A, B and C (solidary debtors) obliged Discussion: Article 1209 tells you that even if
themselves to pay 120,000 to Y and Z ( joint the prestation is indivisible, the obligation
creditors). How much can Y demand from A? can still be joint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
26
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Illustration: A and B obliged themselves to
deliver a car to X.
Article 1210. The indivisibility of an
obligation does not necessarily give rise to
Q: How will X collect from the obligation solidarity. Nor does solidarity of itself imply
when this is a joint indivisible obligation? indivisibility.
A: Article 1209 says that X has to demand Discussion: When you talk about an
from both debtors. obligation being joint/solidary, it refers to the
relationship or nature of the obligation. On
Discussion: The only way to deliver a car is the other hand, when you talk about
for both A and B to deliver it - because you divisibility/indivisibility, it talks about the
cannot deliver the car in halves. The only way prestation itself. That’s why we said that the
to comply with the obligation is to deliver prestation is indivisible (in the earlier
the entire car. illustration). If it’s money = divisible, if it’s a
car = indivisible.
Q: How do you make that obligation be
fulfilled by the joint debtors? While, when you talk about divisibility or
indivisibility, it talks about the prestation
A: You have to demand from all of them, as itself.
provided by Article 1209.
It being divisible or indivisible, does not
Q: What happens if A is insolvent? affect it being joint or solidary and vice versa.
It being joint or solidary, does not affect the
A: Since the car cannot be delivered, it will nature of the prestation/object.
become a claim for damages - so X must
demand his share in monetary damages.
Article 1211. Solidarity may exist although
the creditors and the debtors may not be
Discussion: If the car they had agreed on bound in the same manner and by the
was worth Php 1,000,000.00 and A is same periods and conditions.
insolvent - since this is joint, B should not be
liable for the share of A.
Illustration: A, B and C made themselves
solidarily liable to X for P90,000. In their
So, B is still liable for his share - which is now
agreement:
converted into a monetary one. This means
he is liable to deliver Php 500,000.00.
1) A will pay on January 5, 2023
2) B will pay if B passes the 2022 Bar
Note: B cannot be demanded to pay the
Exams
share of A since the obligation is joint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
27
________________________________________________________________________________________________
3) C will pay if his only pet cat dies -
ATTY: For you to vividly remember the
Atty: How does this affect it being a solidary difference between the two, when you say
obligation upon the arrival of January 5, ACTIVE, this refers to the Creditor being
2023? How much can X demand from B? active in collecting the debt.
Student: X may demand A’s share from B

Article 1212. Each one of the solidary
because it is a solidary liability. A’s liability has
creditors may do whatever may be useful
already accrued on January 5, 2023. to the others but not anything which may
be prejudicial to the latter.
TN: Even if each of them are subject to
different terms and conditions, they can still
Explanation:
be made liable to X for the share of another
solidary debtor. If one of the solidary debtors'
share is already due and demandable, then
Again, the act of one is the act of all. If it is
any of them will have to pay even if their
beneficial, then it benefits all. If it is
share is not yet due and demandable.
prejudicial, the only one who will be affected
is the solidary creditor who did the
So when January 5, 2023 arrives and the
prejudicial act.
results of the 2022 Bar exams has not been
released yet and the cat is still alive, even
Example: If one of the solidary creditors
though both of their shares are not yet due
condones the debt of the debtor. This is
but since the obligation is solidary, X can
prejudicial to the other solidary creditor.
demand from either of them to pay the
Although the debt is extinguished, the
share/obligation of the one that is already
creditor who condoned the debt will now be
due and demandable.
liable to the other creditor.
In our example, January 5, 2023 is the period

Another example: A and B are solidarily
when A’s due becomes due and
liable to C, D and E who are likewise solidary
demandable.
creditors, for 300K.
Passive Solidarity
If C will do anything which is beneficial to D
- It means solidarity among co-debtors
and E, like demanding payment then it will
while
also benefit D and E. But if C does anything
prejudicial like condoning the debt.
Active Solidarity
- It means solidarity among co-
creditors.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember, once he condones the debt of A Atty: It is based on trust. “The act of one is
and B, that means they are no longer liable the act of all”. C cannot just simply assign it
because the act of one is the act of all. On to X (stranger) without the consent of D and
the part of the solidary debtors, they no E because D and E might not trust X.
longer have a debt. But since C condoned it
without the consent of D and E, C will be the Q: But what if C assigns his right to D (co-
one to pay what supposedly, D and E will creditor). Does he need the consent of E
receive from A and B. (another co-creditor)?
So, while the nature of the relationship or A: Not needed.

relationship among themselves is solidary,
Atty: Because the reason behind the law is
they have shares actually. So the 300,000 is
not present. The reason is that you must
supposedly shared by the three. But when C
trust the assignee. But since here, there is
condoned the 300k, he condoned everything
already trust, no need. So, if the rights of C is
because it is a solidary obligation, prejudicial
assigned to D (existing solidary creditor) then
to D and E. Even if D and E wants to collect,
it need not get the consent of other solidary
they cannot collect anymore because it will
creditor.
bind them as against A and B. But to be fair,
you have this provision of law that protects
other creditors from prejudicial acts of Article 1214. The debtor may pay any one of
another solidary creditors. the solidary creditors; but if any demand,
judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by
Now, C will have to pay 100k to D and 100k to
one of them, payment should be made to
E. him.
Article 1213. A solidary creditor cannot

assign his rights without the consent of
the others. Atty: The debtor may pay any one of the
solidary creditors. So in our example, A may
pay D or E. But if any demand, judicial or
Q: Why is that? What’s the reason behind extrajudicial, has been made by one of them,
that? payment should be made to him.
A: Because the relationship of solidary There is an author who says otherwise. This
creditors is similar to that of a mutual
author said that anyone can pay even if
agency. They cannot act to the prejudice of
others. They established their relationship another creditor has already demanded.
based on trust and they cannot just
introduce another people to the relationship.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
29
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Atty: I don’t agree with that because the The creditor who may have executed any of
creditor is already demanding the solidary these acts, as well as he who collects the
debtor, judicial or extrajudicial, then it should debt, shall be liable to the others for the
be made to him. Unless, if payment is made share in the obligation corresponding to
prior to the demand and it was accepted them. (1143)
because that would be a different scenario
because payment was made before any
Condonation - will extinguish obligation,
demand was made so you can just pay to
without prejudice to Art. 1219.
anyone. But if any demand, judicial or
extrajudicial, the law is very clear, that
Novation - change of terms and conditions
payment must be made to that demanding
of a contract or change of debtors or change
solidary creditor.
of creditors
● If prejudicial - solidary creditor who
If there is already a demanding solidary
effected the novation shall reimburse
creditor, whether judicial or extrajudicial,
the others for damages incurred by
then it (payment) should be made to him.
them
● If beneficial - creditor effecting the
If payment was made prior to the demand
novation who was able to secure the
and it was accepted, this would be a
fulfillment of the new obligation shall
different scenario because payment was
be liable to the others for the share
made before any demand, so you could just
which corresponds to them, not only
pay anyone.
in the obligation but also in the
benefits
Illustration:
A is indebted to Y and Z, in the amount of
Compensation - when the creditors owes
P100,000. A can pay the P100,000 to either if
the debtor, and the debtor owes the creditor;
there was no demand yet. But if there was
amount owed is the same and both are due
already demand, e.g. Y demanded payment,
and demandable
then A should pay Y.
Confusion - the rights of a creditor and
ARTICLE 1215. Novation, compensation, debtor are in one and the same person
confusion or remission of the debt, made by
any of the solidary creditors or with any of Q: What is confusion?
the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the
obligation, without prejudice to the A: When the rights of a debtor and creditor
provisions of article 1219. are found in one and the same person.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The next two (2) examples will show the A: Confusion takes place and extinguishes
distinction between compensation and the obligation of the solidary creditors. Z is
confusion. alkansi so he can collect from his fellow
creditor, Y, who caused the confusion.
Example No. 1:
Q: How much can Z collect from Y?
A → Y → A
and Z A: He can collect P50,000, Atty.
(solidary creditors)
A obliges himself to pay P100,000 to Y and Z.

Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against
Y is also indebted to A so he also pays
anyone of the solidary debtors or some or
P100,000 to A.
all of them simultaneously. The demand
made against one of them shall not be an
Q: What happens to the obligation
obstacle to those which may subsequently
between A and Y?
be directed against the others, so long as
the debt has not been fully collected.
Compensation takes place between A and Y.
Here, since the obligation of A to Y and Z is
extinguished. This gives Z the right to
demand from Y 50,000 since the obligation “The creditor may proceed against anyone
was extinguished by Y. of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
simultaneously.” This is basically the crux of
Example No. 2: what solidary obligations are. You can
demand from only one, from some, or from
A Y A all of them, depending on the creditor.
and Z
(solidary creditors) “The demand made against one of them
shall not be an obstacle to those which may
A obliges himself to pay P100,000 to Y and Z. subsequently be directed against the others,
Y is also indebted to A so the former assigns so long as the debt has not been fully
his credit to the latter. collected.”
Example: Y and Z are indebted to A for

Q: What happens to the obligation when Y P100,000. A can demand payment from
assigned his credit A? either Y or Z.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
31
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q: If A demands from Y, and Y only pays “solidary”, or using the pronoun “I” in
P70,000, can A still go after Z? referring to many of you instead of using
“we”.
A: Yes, as long as the debt has not been fully
collected. The demand made against one of Or using the pronoun “I” to refer to many of
them shall not be an obstacle to those which you instead of we. “I promise to pay” unya
may subsequently be directed against the daghan mo nipirma, referring yourself as
others. one. If there are words that clearly express
the nature of obligation as solidary, then you
Palmares v. CA have no choice. You cannot refuse to pay
because you bound yourself solitarily.
Facts: The creditor was M.B. Lending
In Palmares, the SC said that in suretyship,
Corporation who extended a P30,000 loan
there is but one contract and the surety is
to the spouses Azarraga, and the co-maker
bound by the same agreement which binds
of their promissory note was the petitioner
the principal. Demand to the sureties is not
Palmares. Because of the insolvency of the
necessary or may not be pursued against
spouses, the creditor demanded the full
them since the commencement of the suit is
payment of their debt from Palmares. But
already sufficient demand. A surety is not
here, Palmares was saying that she is not
even entitled, as a matter of right, to be
liable as a solidary debtor because there
given notice of the principal's default.
was a confusion in the promissory note. In
the second paragraph of the PN, it says
that she was a surety, but in the third Art. 1217 Payment made by one of the
paragraph it said that she was only liable as solidary debtors extinguishes the
a guarantor. obligation. If two or more solidary debtors
offer to pay, the creditor may choose which
Issue: W/N Palmares is solidarily liable with offer to accept. xx
the spouse Azarraga.
MBL: it being solidary, take note that the act
Held: Yes. Under the law, if there are words
of one is the act of all.
or terms that specify that the obligation is
a solidary one, then that is the liability.
Example:
If A and B solidarily owes C, and both solidary
debtors offer to pay C, C may choose which
MBL: If there are words that have been used payment between A and B he wants to
in the agreement implying solidarity, like accept. The obligation will then be
using the phrase “jointly and severally” or
________________________________________________________________________________________________
32
________________________________________________________________________________________________
extinguished once the creditor accepts If there is a solidary co-debtor is who is
payment from whoever he chooses to. insolvent, his share shall be shouldered by
the solvent solidary co-debtor
Art. 1217. xx
Example: A, B, C, and D are indebted to X,
He who made the payment may claim
P400,000.
from his co-debtors only the share which
corresponds to each, with the interest for
Since it’s solidary, any of the solidary debtor
the payment already made. If the payment
can pay. But if one of the solidary debtors will
is made before the debt is due, no interest
pay the P400,000, he’s entitled to
for the intervening period may be
reimbursement.
demanded.
So, if he paid P400,000, this obligation is

When one of the solidary debtors cannot,
already extinguished. But because of such
because of his insolvency, reimburse his
extinguishment, there are other obligations
share to the debtor paying the obligation,
that were created.
such share shall be borne by all his
codebtors, in proportion to the debt of
Q: What obligations were these?
each.
A: Obligation of B to A, C to A and D to A.
MBL: to whom shall the solidary debtor pay?
To any of the Solidary Creditors. If thre was a Q: Why?
demand, then payment shall be made to the
demanding creditor. A: Because he has to be reimbursed. Sila
If there are two or more demands, then man tanan ang nangutang. Only that, he
payment shall be made to the first who was the one who paid.
demanded. Priority in time is priority in right.
So, the P400,000 will be divided into 4. They
If the demands were made at the same time, are supposed to be liable for P100,000 each.
then the debtor may just choose who to pay.
If one of the solidary debtors will fully pay, Remember that A is also indebted. His share
then the obligation is extinguished. is P100,000. So the reimbursement to him
should only be P300,000.
The paying debtor is entitled to
reimbursement from his co-solidary debtors. Q: Where did we get the P300,000?
A: P100,000 from B, C, D.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
33
________________________________________________________________________________________________
That is also a remedy for those who
Art. 1217. xxx When one of the solidary
debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, shouldered the share of the insolvent debtor.
reimburse his share to the debtor paying Just because you’re insolvent or your share
the obligation, such share shall be borne by will be shouldered by the rest, that does not
all his codebtors, in proportion to the debt mean that you are no longer liable.
of each.
You will still be liable. It is now up to the
Q: What happens if B is insolvent? absorbing debtors to look whether, “Okay
naba ni sya? Pwede naba ni nato sya
A: If B is insolvent and it is solidary, then his mapaninglan?”
share will be borne by others. If these were
joint, bahala naka sa imong life. Wa koy labot So, that is your Article 1217.
nimo.
Art. 1218. Payment by a solidary debtor shall
If it’s solidary, the share of the solidary debtor not entitle him to reimbursement from his
will have to be shared by all of them. That’s co-debtors if such payment is made after
P100,000. It must be shared by all of them, the obligation has prescribed or become
meaning, including A who paid. illegal.
So, P100,000 divided 3 is P33,333 each. Q: Why?
Q: How much will C reimburse A? A: Because you’re not supposed to pay

anymore. In other words, the law is telling
P133,333. Na-shoulder na ang P100,000 ni B. you na as a solidary debtor, gi-danghag ka
And of course, A has to absorb also, even if he (?), ayaw pangamong. You paid when you’re
was the one who paid. no longer supposed to pay.
In effect, the P400,000 will just be divided Supposedly, wala najud unta mo’y utang but
into 3. since you paid, you cannot collect
reimbursement from the others because
Q: Does that mean that B will no longer that is your fault.
pay?
Art 1219. The remission made by the

A: No. If his circumstances will improve, he creditor of the share which affects one of
will have to pay. So mag abang nalang si A, C the solidary debtors does not release the
and D kung kanus-a mupost si B na latter from his responsibility towards the
nagbakasyon na sya. co-debtors, in case the debt had been
________________________________________________________________________________________________
34
________________________________________________________________________________________________
totally paid by anyone of them before the prestation has become impossible without
remission was effected. the fault of the solidary debtors, the
obligation shall be extinguished.
A, B and C are solidarily liable to Z for 120,000.
Z condones the share of B which is 40,000. Example: They obliged themselves to deliver
However, such condonation came after A a specific car and then the car got totally
paid the obligation. wrecked due to a supertyphoon, not due to
their fault, obligation is totally extinguished.
The law says that B will still have to pay his
share of 40,000 to A because when the
remission happened, the debt was already Art 1221(2). If there was fault on the part of
extinguished. any one of them, all shall be responsible to
the creditor, for the price and the payment
of damages and interest, without prejudice
Art 1220. The remission of the whole to their action against the guilty or
obligation, obtained by one of the solidary negligent debtor.
debtors, does not entitle him to
reimbursement from his co-debtors.
What does that mean?
Example: The debt is 300,000. Just because
Example: A, B, and C oblige themselves to
A successfully got the debt condoned, that
deliver a particular car to X. A used the car to
does not give him the right to collect from B
go drag-racing. If the car is lost due to A’s
and C because the debt is already
fault or negligence, does that extinguish the
extinguished. Even if it was through his
obligation?
efforts that the debt has been extinguished.
He cannot get the supposed shares of his co-
A: No, because it is not a fortuitous event. It is
debtors because there is already an
now converted into a monetary obligation.
extinguishment of obligation.
If the value of the car was P1,200,000, the

Example: A, B, C obliged themselves to pay
total amount plus damages must be paid to
300,000 to Z. A was able to convince Z to
X. Who will pay, since the obligation is
condone the entire debt.
solidary?
Q: Can A collect B and C’s shares?
A: A, B, or C.
A: Not anymore.
The parties agreed that the damages

Art 1221(1). If the thing has been lost or if the amounted to P300,000. So the total amount
________________________________________________________________________________________________
35
________________________________________________________________________________________________
payable to X is P1,500,000. If B pays, he is plus the amount of damages which is
entitled to be reimbursed, pursuant to Art. P300,00.00 for a total of P700,000.00. B can
1221. How much can he then collect from A collect from C P400,000.00 only.
and C?
As against the creditor, they will have to pay
regardless of whoever will pay. So even if B is
A: B can collect P400,000 from C, and not at fault he has to pay everything — the
another P400,000 from A. The damages value of the prestation plus damages. B can
amounting to P500,000 shall be collected collect reimbursement from A the amount of
from A, being the party at fault. his share of the prestation plus damages
because he is at fault. That is why it is P1.2
B - paid 1,500,000 to X Million shared by A, B, and C — P400,000.00
each. Then there is damage amounting to
C - pay 400,000 to B
P300,000.00 which will be paid by the
A - pay 900,000 (400,000 + 500,000) to B negligent debtor who is A. So B can collect
P700,000.00 from A, and only P400,000.00
from C.
ARTICLE 1221. If the thing has been lost or
if the prestation has become impossible
without the fault of the solidary debtors, ARTICLE 1222. A solidary debtor may, in
the obligation shall be extinguished. actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of
all defenses which are derived from the
If there was fault on the part of any one nature of the obligation and of those which
of them, all shall be responsible to the are personal to him, or pertain to his own
creditor, for the price and the payment of share. With respect to those which
damages and interest, without prejudice personally belong to the others, he may
to their action against the guilty or avail himself thereof only as regards that
negligent debtor. part of the debt for which the latter are
responsible.
If through a fortuitous event, the thing is
lost or the performance has become
impossible after one of the solidary debtors
has incurred in delay through the judicial Example:
or extrajudicial demand upon him by the
creditor, the provisions of the preceding A, B & C solidary debtors to X in the amount
paragraph shall apply. (1147a) of P60,000. A is 17 years old.
If X demands from A, if you are the lawyer of

A, what will you tell A?
Based on the second paragraph of Article
1221, since A is the negligent debtor, he will Answer: On the part of A, it is a complete
be the only one responsible for the damages. defense that he or she is still a minor. This is a
The P1,200,000.00 will be divided among A, real defense as to the minor.
B, and C. B can collect P400,000.00 from A,
________________________________________________________________________________________________
36
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, if X makes a demand against B?
claimed that Pilipinas Bank became
Answer: B can interpose the minority of A so solidarily liable when it issued the DCR.
that he will not pay the share of A and pay
only P40,000.. He can also use defenses of A ISSUE: Whether Pilipinas became solidarily
but only to the extent of the proportion of liable with Philfinance and Delta when
the share of A. 60,000 man divided by 3, Pilipinas issued the DCR.
minor man siya (referring to A), B can say
“okay I will pay, but I will not pay A’s share RULING:
because he is not supposed to be liable. That
is what is meant by Article 1222. NO. There is nothing in the DCR that
establishes an obligation on the part of
Pilipinas to pay petitioner the said amount.
SESBRENO VS CA There is nothing written on the DCR which
G.R. No. 89252, May 24, 1993, 222 SCRA 466 could be read as converting Pilipinas into
an obligor under the terms of the DMC
FACTS assigned to petitioner, either upon
maturity thereof or at any other time.
Sesbreno made a money market
placement in the amount of P300,000 with Under Art. 1207, "there is a solidary liability
PhilFinance. only when the obligation expressly so
states, or when the law or the nature of the
PhilFinance issued to Sesbreno the
obligation requires solidarity."
Certificate of Securities Delivery Receipt
indicating the sale of the Note with The record exhibits no express assumption
notation that said security was in the of solidary liability vis-a-vis petitioner, on
custody of Pilipinas Bank. Later, the part of Pilipinas.
Philfinance delivered to petitioner the DCR
No. 10805 issued by private respondent MBL: Here the Supreme Court said that
Pilipinas Bank. nothing in the document would tell you
that Pilipinas had assumed solidary liability.
Petitioner approached Ms. de Villa of The SC also said that you have not shown a
private respondent Pilipinas, and handed law that would say that there was solidary
her a demand letter informing the bank liability. What did we say? There is only
that his placement with Philfinance in the solidary liability when the obligation
amount reflected in the DCR had expressly so states or when the law
remained unpaid and that he in effect was expressly so provides or by the nature of
asking for the physical delivery of the the obligation requires solidarity.
underlying promissory note. But Pilipinas
did not deliver the Note.
Due to this, petitioner filed an action for

damages against private respondents and
________________________________________________________________________________________________
37
________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is nothing in the document that states
that Pilipinas assumes solidary liability with Trial court rendered judgment ordering
Philfinance and Delta Motors. Petitioner has the defendants, (the Sta Maria Siblings and
not also shown any law that makes Pilipinas the Surety of Maximo). to jointly and
solidarily liable. Remember the rule that severally pay PNB. The 6 brothers and
there is only solidary liability if: sisters appealed saying that under the
special power of attorney, they had not
a. The obligation so provides or
given their brother, Maximo, the authority
to borrow money but only to mortgage the
b. The law or the nature of the obligation
real estate jointly owned by them; They
requires solidary liability.
further contended that they did not
benefit whatsoever from the loans, and
that the plaintiff bank's only recourse
PNB v STA MARIA against them is to foreclose on the
G.R. No. L-24765, Aug. 29, 1969, 29 SCRA property which they had authorized
Maximo to mortgage.
303
ISSUE: Whether the siblings are solidarily
FACTS liable with Maximo?
PNB filed an action for the collection of RULING: No, except for Valeriana Sta. Maria.
certain amounts representing unpaid
balances on two agricultural sugar crop The authority granted by defendants
loans from defendants Maximo Sta. Maria (except Valeriana) unto their brother,
and his 6 brothers and sisters and the Maximo, was merely to mortgage the
Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. The property jointly owned by them. They did
sugar crop loans were obtained by Maximo not grant Maximo any authority to contract
from PNB under a special power of for any loans in their names and behalf.
attorney, executed in his favor by his 6 Maximo alone, with Valeriana who
brothers and sisters to mortgage a 16- odd authorized him to borrow money, must
hectare parcel of land, jointly owned by all answer for said loans and the other
of them, located in Bataan. In addition,
defendants-appellants' only liability is that
Valeriana Sta. Maria alone was also
the real estate authorized by them to be
executed in favor of her brother, Maximo, a
mortgaged would be subject to foreclosure
special power of attorney to borrow money
and mortgage any real estate owned by and sale to respond for the obligations
her. contracted by Maximo. But they cannot be
held personally liable for the payment of
As security for the two loans, Maximo such obligations, as erroneously held by
executed in his own name 2 chattel the trial court.
mortgages on the standing crops,
guaranteed by surety bonds executed by However, valeriana stands liable not merely
the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. on the mortgage of her share in the
________________________________________________________________________________________________
38
________________________________________________________________________________________________
property, but also for the loans which Use of Pacificard, a copy of which was
Maximo had obtained from PNB, since she issued to and received by Regala on the
had expressly granted Maximo the date of the application and expressly
authority to incur such loans. Valeriana's agreed that the use of the Pacificard is
liability for the loans secured by Maximo is governed by said Terms and Conditions.
not joint and several or solidary as
adjudged by the trial court, but only joint, Defendant Robert Regala Jr., spouse of
pursuant to the provisions of Article 1207 of Celia, executed a “Guarantor’s
the Civil Code that "the concurrence ... of Undertaking” in favor of the Bank whereby
two or more debtors in one and the same he agreed 'jointly and severally of Celia
obligation does not imply that ... each one Regala, to pay the PBC upon demand, any
of the (debtors) is bound to render entire and all indebtedness, obligations, charges
compliance with the prestation. There is a or liabilities due and incurred by said Celia
solidary liability only when the obligation Regala with the use of the Pacificard, or
expressly states, or when the law or the renewals thereof, issued in her favor by the
nature of the obligation requires solidarity." PBC'.
It should be noted that in the additional
special power of attorney executed by The defendant Celia Regala had purchased
Valeriana, she did not grant Maximo the goods and/or services on credit (under her
authority to bind her solidarily with him on Pacificard, for which the plaintiff advanced
any loans he might secure thereunder. the cost amounting to P92,803.98 at the
time of the filing of the complaint.
MBL: The SC said you do not assume
solidarity if you do not see that in any of In view of defendant Celia Regala's failure
the documents. In the documents to settle her account for the purchases
presented, you have there a SPA to borrow made thru the use of the Pacificard, a
but it was a joint obligation because it does written demand was sent to the latter and
not expressly state solidarity. Again, if it also to the defendant Roberto Regala, Jr.
does not show whether it’s joint or solidary, under his 'Guarantor's Undertaking.'
you assume that it is joint because it is less
burdensome. PBC filed a complaint considering
defendants’ repeated failure to settle their
obligation. Celia Regala was declared in
default for her failure to file her answer
Pacific Banking Corp. vs. IAC & Regala within the reglementary period.
G.R. No. 72275, Nov. 13, 1991, 203 SCRA 496
Defendant-appellant Roberto Regala, Jr.
FACTS: filed his Answer with Counterclaim
admitting his execution of the 'Guarantor's
Celia Regala applied for and obtained from Understanding, but with the
plaintiff a credit card, under the "Terms and understanding that his liability would be
Conditions governing the Issuance and limited to P2,000.00 per month.' "
________________________________________________________________________________________________
39
________________________________________________________________________________________________
conditions clearly said that the obligation is

ISSUE: Whether Roberto is jointly and solidary. The phrase used was “jointly and
severally liable to pay the principal severally” which implies solidarity. As
obligation together with Celia. opposed to a guarantor, where the
guarantor can only be made to pay after all
RULING: Yes, the undertaking signed by of the assets of the debtor, that is not the
Roberto although denominated same if you are a surety. Because a surety
“Guarantor’s Undertaking” was in can be made liable directly.
substance a contract of surety.
In Guaranty, the guarantor binds himself to

the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the Ronquillo vs. CA
principal debtor only in case the latter G.R. No. L-55138, Sept. 28, 1984, 132 SCRA
should fail to do so. While in surety, the 274
surety binds himself solidarily with the
principal debtor.
FACTS:
As a surety Roberto bound himself jointly
and severally with the debtor Celia Regala Respondent Antonio P. So filed an action
"to pay the Pacific Banking Corporation for the collection of money against
upon demand, any and all indebtedness, Ronquillo, Offshore Catertrade Inc., Johnny
obligations, charges or liabilities due and Tan and Pilar Tan. The amount of
incurred by said Celia Syjuco Regala with P117,498.98 sought to be collected
the use of Pacificard or renewals thereof represents the value of the checks issued
issued in (her) favor by Pacific Banking by the latter in payment for foodstuffs
Corporation." delivered to and received by them. The said
checks were dishonored by the drawee
It is likewise not disputed by the parties bank.
that the credit limit granted to Celia Regala
was P2,000.00 per month and that Celia The decision of the court was based on the
Regala succeeded in using the card compromise agreement submitted by the
beyond the original period of its effectivity, parties. A compromise agreement has
October 29, 1979. been entered where Respondent Antonio
P. So agrees to reduce its total claim to
We do not agree however, that Roberto only P110,000 .00.
Jr.'s liability should be limited to that
extent. Private respondent Roberto Regala, Ronquillo, et. al. agreed to bind themselves
Jr., as surety of his wife, expressly bound to initially pay out of the total indebtedness
himself up to the extent of Celia’s of P110,000.00 the amount of P55,000.00
indebtedness. on or before December 24, 1979, and the
balance of P55,000.00 to be paid
MBL: Here, SC said that the terms and individually and jointly.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
40
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Respondent Antonio P. So filed a Motion Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or
for Execution on the failure of Ronquillo, et the wording of the obligation to which the
al. to make the initial payment of preceding article refers the contrary does
P55,000.00 on or before December 24, not appear, the credit or debt shall be
1979, as provided in the Decision. presumed to be divided into as many equal
shares as there are creditors and debtors,
Obligors Ronquillo and Pilar Tan tendered the credits or debts being considered
P13,750.00 each but was refused by distinct from one another, subject to the
Respondent Antonio P. So. Hence, the two Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of
instead deposited the said amount with quits.
the Clerk of Court. The other two obligors
did not pay their shares. Respondent Clearly then, by the express term of the
Antonio P. So again filed a motion which compromise agreement and the decision
resulted to the issuance of a writ of based upon it, the defendants obligated
execution for the satisfaction of the sum of themselves to pay their obligation
P82,500.00 as against the properties of "individually and jointly".
Ronquillo, et.al, "singly or jointly liable.”
The term "individually" has the same
However, Ronquillo raised the question of meaning as "collectively", "separately",
the validity of the order of execution when "distinctively", respectively or "severally". An
the lower court's decision based on the agreement to be "individually liable"
compromise agreement did not undoubtedly creates a several obligation,
specifically state the liability of the four and a "several obligation is one by which
obligors to be solidary. one individual binds himself to perform the
whole obligation.
Issue: Whether or not Ronquillo and other
obligors are solidarily liable. The obligation being described as
"individually and jointly", the same is
Held: therefore enforceable against one of the
numerous obligors.
Yes. Solidary.
MBL:
Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more In here there’s another word that can be
debtors in one and the same obligation used to express solidarity and that is the
does not imply that each one of the former use of the word “individually.” Again your
has a right to demand, or that each one of solidarity is the act of one is the act of all.
the latter is bound to render, entire
compliance with the prestation. Then is a
solidary liability only when the obligation
expressly so states, or when the law or the Quiombing v. CA
nature of the obligation requires solidarity. G.R. No. 93010, 30 August 1990
________________________________________________________________________________________________
41
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Facts: a co-plaintiff.
On August 30, 1983, Nicencio Tan Held:

Quiombing and Dante Biscocho, as the
First Party, jointly and severally bound Article 1212 of the Civil Code provides:
themselves in a “Construction and Service
Agreement” to construct a house for Each one of the solidary creditors may do
private respondents Spouses Francisco and whatever may be useful to the others, but
Manuelita Saligo, as the Second Party, for not anything which may be prejudice to
the contract price of P137,940.00, which the latter. Suing for the recovery of the
the latter agreed to pay. On October 10, contract price is certainly a useful act that
1984, Quiombing and Manuelita Saligo Quiombing could do by himself alone.
entered into a second written agreement
under which the latter acknowledged the A joint obligation is one in which each of
completion of the house and undertook to the debtors is liable only for a
pay the balance of the contract price in the proportionate part of the debt, and each
manner prescribed in the said second creditor is entitled only to a proportionate
agreement. On November 19, 1984, part of the credit. A solidary obligation is
Manuelita Saligo signed a promissory note one in which each debtor is liable for the
for P125,363.50 representing the amount entire obligation, and each creditor is
still due from her and her husband, entitled to demand the whole obligation.
payable on or before December 31, 1984, to Hence, in the former, each creditor can
Nicencio Tan Quiombing. recover only his share of the obligation, and
each debtor can be made to pay only his
On October 9, 1986, Quiombing filed a part; whereas, in the latter, each creditor
complaint for recovery of the said amount, may enforce the entire obligation, and
plus charges and interests, which the each debtor may be obliged to pay it in full.
private respondents had acknowledged
and promised to pay but had not, despite The essence of active solidarity consists in
repeated demands. Instead of filing an the authority of each creditor to claim and
answer, the defendants moved to dismiss enforce the rights of all, with the resulting
the complaint on February 4, 1987, obligation of paying every one what
contending that Biscocho was an belongs to him; there is no merger, much
indispensable party and therefore should less a renunciation of rights, but only
have been included as a co-plaintiff. mutual representation.
Issue: Whether or not one of the two The question of who should sue the private
solidary creditors may sue by himself alone respondents was a personal issue between
for the recovery of amounts due to both of Quiombing and Biscocho in which the
them without joining the other creditor as spouses Saligo had no right to interfere. It
did not matter who as between them filed
________________________________________________________________________________________________
42
________________________________________________________________________________________________
the complaint because the private plaintiff in the complaint filed by the
respondents were liable to either of the petitioner against the private respondents.
two as a solidary creditor for the full Quiombing as solidary creditor can by
amount of the debt. Full satisfaction of a himself alone enforce payment of the
judgment obtained against them by construction costs by the private
Quiombing would discharge their respondents and as a solidary debtor may
obligation to Biscocho, and vice versa; by himself alone be held liable for any
hence, it was not necessary for both possible breach of contract that may be
Quiombing and Biscocho to file the proved by the private respondents. In
complaint. Inclusion of Biscocho as a co- either case, the participation of Biscocho is
plaintiff, when Quiombing was competent not at all necessary, much less
to sue by himself alone, would be a useless indispensable.
formality.
MBL: Here the Supreme Court said that in
Parenthetically, it must be observed that a solidary obligation anyone of the solidary
the complaint having been filed by the creditors can file a suit, you don’t have to
petitioner, whatever amount is awarded include all the solidary creditors, why?
against the debtor must be paid Because again the act of one is the act of
exclusively to him, pursuant to Article 1214. all. While in a joint obligation, to attain a
This provision states that “the debtor may complete resolution of the case, all the
pay any of the solidary creditors; but if any debtors and creditors must be impleaded,
demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been subject to the rules governing multiplicity
made by any one of them, payment should of suits, in the final determination of the
be made to him. obligation. That’s the difference between
the two.
If Quiombing eventually collects the
amount due from the solidary debtors,
Biscocho may later claim his share thereof, Inciong, Jr vs. Court of Appeals
but that decision is for him alone to make. G.R. No. 96405. June 26, 1996
It will affect only the petitioner as the other
solidary creditor and not the private Facts: Inciong, with two other debtors,
respondents, who have absolutely nothing executed a promissory note for P50, 000 in
to do with this matter. As far as they are favor of PBCom for chainsaws for their
concerned, payment of the judgment debt logging businesss. They failed to pay and
to the complainant will be considered so PBCom filed a complaint against all
payment to the other solidary creditor three debtors. The case against the second
even if the latter was not a party to the suit. debtor was dismissed and the other debtor
was in Saudi Arabia and so the court could
Although he signed the original not obtain jurisdiction over his person.
Construction and Service Agreement, Thus, the proceeding against Inciong was
Biscocho need not be included as a co- the only one that continued. Inciong
________________________________________________________________________________________________
43
________________________________________________________________________________________________
argued that the dismissal of the complaint

against one of them (the principal debtor)
and against his co-maker, constituted a
release of his obligation, especially that the
release of one of the solidary debtors, was
upon the motion of PBCom.
Issue: Whether or not Inciong is indeed

released from liability.
Held: No. Under the Civil Code, it is up to

the choice of the creditor which debtor to
collect from in a solidary obligation such as
this one. Here, the language of the contract
showed that Inciong is jointly and severally
liable and the first sentence of his
promissory note indicated that the three of
them jointly and severally promised to pay
PBCom.
MBL: In this case the Supreme Court said,

the choice is left to the solidary creditor to
determine against whom he will enforce
collection because as we said in a solidary
obligation, one of the solidary creditors can
file a suit or demand payment from any of
the solidary debtors because they are
considered as one—“one for all and all for
one”.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
44

Eh 401 SG Mod 3 Complete Oblicon Rev Trans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eh 401 SG Mod 3 Complete Oblicon Rev Trans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL LAW REVIEW | OBLICON TRANS | ATTY.

I. PURE AND CONDITIONAL A: An obligation that is dependent upon the

EXAMPLE: Q: How then do you call an obligation that

Your payment of the P500,000 is not A: It is called an obligation with a period.

It is a condition because it is a future and an RECAP: What is the difference between

As opposed to CONDITION, a condition is a This is a day that is certain to come in the

The period in an obligation with a period In this example, the obligation is

Another way of classifying the period is

ARTICLE 1195. Anything paid or delivered

before the arrival of the period, the obligor

A: This mean that when there is a period,

Q: What does that mean?

XPN to XPN: Unless the debtor can give a

Example: General Rule:

While Betty may have the right to choose

Again, The debtor has the right of choice

Remember: It is only when the debtor has

Example: So long as the debtor has communicated or

(2) If the loss of one of the things occurs

The indemnity shall be fixed taking as a

Damages other than the value of the last

Art. 1205. When the choice has been

Until then the responsibility of the debtor

Illustration A: Obligation is not extinguished, unlike

Even if the motorcycle would be lost due to

If the yacht was lost due to his fault or

RIGHT OF CHOICE BELONGS TO CREDITOR

Q: Now, how about if there is loss, but the

A: No, some consequences are not all the

If some of the prescriptions are lost and only

When we talk about divisible and indivisible

Article 1223. The divisibility or indivisibility of

The reason behind the law for not letting A

A: The debtor cannot exempt himself from

Art 1228. . Proof of actual damages suffered

The nullity of the principal obligation carries

In the reverse, If the accessory obligation is

Answer: Because a penal clause is an Art. 1207 The concurrence of 2 or more

requires solidarity. Reason: It is less burdensome.

There is only solidary obligation when:

Illustration (2 or more creditors)

There are as many

This is a joint obligation because there is no

Student: X may demand A’s share from B

In our example, January 5, 2023 is the period

So, while the nature of the relationship or A: Not needed.

Article 1213. A solidary creditor cannot

A obliges himself to pay P100,000 to Y and Z.

Example: Y and Z are indebted to A for

So, if he paid P400,000, this obligation is

So, P100,000 divided 3 is P33,333 each. Q: Why?

Q: How much will C reimburse A? A: Because you’re not supposed to pay

Art 1219. The remission made by the

If the value of the car was P1,200,000, the

The parties agreed that the damages

If X demands from A, if you are the lawyer of

Due to this, petitioner filed an action for

conditions clearly said that the obligation is

In Guaranty, the guarantor binds himself to

On August 30, 1983, Nicencio Tan Held:

argued that the dismissal of the complaint

Issue: Whether or not Inciong is indeed

Held: No. Under the Civil Code, it is up to