1.

To begin, No, Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1220, Considering
that all of the solidary debtors are also remitted to pay the 600,000, therefore, D1
is not entitled to claim reimbursement from his co-debtors D2 and D3. One of the
justifications is that when C remitted the debt of D1, he did not pay the 600,000,
which is inappropriate due to the fact that it was remitted and then you will
reimburse your co-debtors. In conclusion, there is no right to reimbursement in the
event of remission.

2. To begin with, No, under Article 1221 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, D1 and
D2 will also be liable for the price of 300,000 as well as for the damages, although
they were not at fault at all, considering that the law expressly makes them liable
and they are jointly and severally obligated to deliver a specific vintage car to
C. It applies to the second paragraph of Article 1221, which states that if any of
them was at fault, they are liable to the creditor for the price as well as the
payment of damages and interest, without prejudice to their action against the
guilty or negligent debtor. To sum up, D1 and D2 do not have the right to refuse
the payment of 300,000 plus damages as the essence of solidarity arises; they are
all responsible for delivering a car.

3. To begin, Yes, under the civil code article 1222, D1 and D3 are only liable to pay
40,000. Given that D2 is still a minor, he can avail himself of a defense that is
personal to him, which makes him incapacitated to give his participation in a
contract. Since he’s a minor, he has a complete defense. On the other hand, D1
and D3 have a partial defense which is personal to the other solidary debtors.
Therefore, considering that it is partial, D1 and D3 are only liable for 40,000 for
their share. To sum it all up, when C files an action against D1 and D2, they will
only reimburse C 40,000 since they have a partial defense as the entire defense is
only available to D2, who has a personal defense.