Sec. 2 – Obligations with a Period C.
According to definiteness
Art. 1193. Obligations for whose fulfillment a day
certain has been fixed, shall be demandable only when
that day comes.
Obligations with a resolutory period take effect
once, but terminate upon arrival of the day certain.
A day certain is understood to be that which must
necessarily come, although it may not be known when.
If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will
come or not, the obligation is conditional, and it shall
be regulated by the rules of the preceding Section.
Term or Period- interval of time, which exerting an
influence on an obligation as a consequence of a
juridical act, either suspends its demandability or
produces its extinguishment.
Obligations with a period- obligations whose
demandability or extinguishment is subject to the
expiration of a term or a period.
Requisites:
1. Future
2. Certain
3. Possible, legally and physically
A day certain – understood to be that which must
necessarily come, although it may not be known when
Certainty of event may be either:
a) absolutely known (e.g.: May 23, 2010)
b) relatively known (e.g.: fixing a period several
days after
May 23, 2010)
c) totally unknown (day when a person dies)
Classification of Term/Period
A. According to source
1. Voluntary/ conventional – fixed by the will of the
parties
2. Legal – fixed by law
3. Judicial – fixed by the courts
B. According to effect
1. Suspensive (ex die or dies a quo) – when the
obligation is demandable only when the day comes
1. Resolutory (in diem or dies ad quem) – when
the obligation takes effect at once but terminates upon
the arrival of the day certain
1. Definite – when the period is fixed
2. Indefinite – when the term or period is not fixed
D. According to expression
1. Express – when the period is stipulated in the
obligation
2. Tacit – when from the nature or circumstances, it can
be inferred that a period was intended
E. According to nature
1. Ordinary – that which would not prevent the
obligation from being fulfilled despite the lapse of
the same in accordance with the rules governing
delay or mora.
2. Essential – which requires that the obligation
be performed precisely and exclusively at the time
stipulated without there being a possibility of its
being fulfilled
Effect of Term or Period
• Suspensive – demandable only upon the
arrival of the day certain or expiration of the
term
• Resolutory – fulfillment is demandable at once
but it is extinguished or terminated upon the
arrival of the day certain or expiration of the
term
Effect of Fortuitous Event
The stipulation that in the event of force majeure,
the contract shall be deemed suspended during the
said period does not mean that the happening of any
of those events stops the running of the period the
contract agreed upon to run.
Art. 1194. In case of loss, deterioration or
improvement of the thing before the arrival of the
day certain, the rules in article 1189 shall be
observed.
This is only applicable to obligations to give a
determinate thing
Art. 1195. Anything paid or delivered before the
arrival of the period, the obligor being unaware of
the period or believing that the obligation has
become due and demandable, may be recovered,
with the fruits and interests.
Effect of Advance Payment or Delivery
 If obligor is unaware or believing that
payment is due and demandable, paid, or
delivered something before the arrival of the
 period, he may recover what he has paid or
delivered with fruits and interest.
 apply on “to give”
 If it is voluntary done or done with knowledge
that it is not yet due, there can be no right to
recover.
 This is construed in relation to Solutio indebiti
or payment of what is not due.
 This pertains to the recovery of thing or
money itself, plus the fruits or interest
accruing from the moment of payment to
the date of recovery
There is no recovery (Tolentino)
1. When the obligation is reciprocal, and there has been
premature performance on both sides
2. When the obligation is a loan on which the debtor
bound to pay interest
3. When the period is exclusively for the benefit of the
creditor, because the debtor by paying in advance loses
nothing
Art. 1196. Whenever in an obligation a period is
designated, it is presumed to have been established for
the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor, unless
from the tenor of the same or other circumstances it
should appear that the period has been established in
favor of one of the other.
Benefit of Term or Period
General Rule: When a period is designated for the
performance or fulfillment of an obligation, it is
presumed to have been established for the benefit of
both the creditor and the doctor.  Presumption
Exception: If it be proved that either from the tenor of
the obligation or from other circumstances that term
has been established in favor of the creditor of the
debtor
Term is for the benefit of both parties (Presumption)
The creditor cannot demand payment and the
debtor cannot make an effective tender and
consignation of payment before the period stipulated.
Term is for benefit of creditor only (Exception)
 Creditor may demand payment anytime, but
the debtor cannot compel him to accept
payment before the period expires (e.g.:
contract of loan where interest is stipulated)
 Right to refuse any payment before the
expiration of the term could be waived by
acceptance of full or partial payment
Term is for benefit of debtor only (Exception)
Debtor may oppose premature demand for payment,
but may validly pay at any time before the period
expires (e.g. contract of loan where no interest is
stipulated)
Why a creditor cannot be compelled to accept
payment
1. Tax avoidance
2. Interest income
3. Safe investment (e.g. Protection against the
sudden decline in the purchasing power of the
currency loaned)
Art. 1197. If the obligation does not fix a period, but
from its nature and the circumstances it can be
inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fix
the duration thereof. The courts shall also fix the
duration of the period when it depends upon the will
of the debtor.
In every case, the courts shall determine such period
as may under the circumstances have been probably
contemplated by the parties. Once fixed by the courts,
the period cannot be changed by them
Judicial term or period - when fixed by a competent
court, the period can no longer be judicially changed
(Art. 1197, par. 3). It becomes a law governing the
contract between the party.
General Rule: Courts are without power to fix period
Exceptions: When the Court may fix a period
1. When the obligation does not fix a period,
but from its nature and the circumstances it can be
inferred that a period was intended by the parties
2. If the duration of the period depends upon
the will of the debtor3. If the debtor binds himself
to pay when his means permit him to do so 
period.
Cannot be applied to:
 Contracts for services in which no period was
fixed by the parties
 Pure obligations
Steps/Nature of the Action
1. Ask the court to fix the duration of the term or period
2. If time elapsed, compel.
Effect of Term
Once the period has been fixed by the court,
it becomes part of the contract, and it cannot be
subsequently changed or extended by the court
without the consent of both the parties.
Two Ultimate Facts:
1. Facts showing that a contract was entered into
imposing on one of the parties an obligation in favor
of the other
2. Facts showing that the performance of the
obligation was left to the will of the obligor, or clearly
showing or from which an inference can be reasonably
drawn that a period was intended.
Art. 1198. The debtor shall lose every right to make use
of the period: [IGIVA]
(1) When after the obligation has been contracted,
he becomes insolvent, unless he gives a
guarantee or security for the debt;
(2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the
guaranties and securities which he has
promised;
(3) When by his own acts he has impaired said
guaranties and securities after their
establishment, and when through a fortuitous
event they disappear1, unless he immediately
gives new ones equally satisfactory;
(4) When the debtor violates any undertaking, in
consideration of which the creditor agreed to
the period;
(5) When the debtor attempts to abscond.
Extinguishment of debtor’s Right to Period
(1) When after the obligation has been contracted, he
becomes insolvent, unless he gives a guaranty or
security for the debt;
 insolvency needs no judicial declaration
 includes any case in which it would be
impossible financially for the debtor to comply
with his obligations
 such insolvency must not be pre-existing; arose
after the constitution of the obligation
 if there is a guaranty or security for the debt,
the debtor, in spite of insolvency, does not lose
his right to the period.
(2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the
guaranties or securities which he has promised;
1 creditor would be at a disadvantage if the
 such failure renders the original obligation pure
and without any condition, and consequently,
the loan become due and demandable.
(3) When by his own acts he has impaired said
guaranties or securities after their establishment, and
when through a fortuitous event they disappear, unless
he immediately gives new ones equally satisfactory;
There is a difference between effects of impairment and
effects of disappearance
1. if the guaranty or security is impaired through
the fault of the debtor, he shall lose his right to the
benefit of the period;
2. if it is impaired without his fault, he shall retain
his right;
3. if the guaranty or security disappears through
any cause, even without the fault of the debtor, he
shall lose his right to the benefit of the period
4. in either case of impairment or disappearance,
the debtor will not lose his right to period if he
gives a new guaranty or security which is equally
satisfactory.
(4) When the debtor violates any undertaking, in
consideration of which the creditor agreed to the
period;
(5) When the debtor attempts to abscond.
 Mere attempt of the debtor disappear or run
away from his obligation.
Section 3 – Alternative and Facultative Obligations
Art. 1199. A person alternatively bound by different
prestations shall completely perform one of them. The
creditor cannot be compelled to receive part of one
and part of the other undertaking. (1131)
Classification (CDAF)
1. Conjunctive – all prestations must be performed to
extinguish obligation
2. Disjunctive – one or some prestations must be
performed to extinguish obligation
3. Alternative – debtor must perform one of several
alternatives, choice belongs to debtor UNLESS expressly
given to creditor
4. Facultative – one principal prestation but one or
more substitutes, choice belongs to DEBTOR ONLY
 Absent the indication that it is facultative, the
presumption is that it is ALTERNATIVE because
 obligation is facultative. Facultative is never
presumed.
Art. 1200. The right of choice belongs to the debtor,
unless it has been expressly granted to the creditor.
The debtor shall have no right to choose
those prestation which are impossible, unlawful or
which could not have been the object of the
obligation. (1132)
Concept:
Alternative Obligation - obligation wherein various
things are due, but the payment of one of them is
sufficient, determined by the choice which as a
general rule belongs to the debtor (Luna)
Election by Debtor
• In alternative obligations, the debtor has the
right to choose the method of meeting the
obligation, unless the creditor has expressly
reserved that right to himself.
Election by Others
• The right to choose may be granted to the
creditor.
• The choice may also be entrusted by the parties
to a third person.
- Although this has not been expressly recognized,
there is no reason why it should not be allowed,
since it is not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.  The grant
must be expressed, it cannot be implied.
Exceptions/ Limitations on the Right to Choose by the
Debtor (I-Ex-IOU-OP-PFB)
1. The debtor cannot choose part of one and part of the
other undertaking.
 The creditor cannot be compelled to receive
part of one and part of the other undertaking.
[Article 1199, paragraph 2 in relation to Article
1248]
 There is a presumption of indivisibility
2. He loses the right to choose when the right of choice
is expressly granted to the creditor.
 The right of choice belongs to the debtor, unless
it has been expressly granted to the creditor.
[Article 1200]
3. The debtor shall have no right to choose those
prestations which are impossible, unlawful or which
could not have been the object of the obligation.
[Article 1200, paragraph 2]
 The presence of such undertaking does not
annul the obligation, it as an alternative one if
there are other lawful and possible subjects.
 Prestations which could not have been the
objects of the obligation refers to:
 prestations which turn out to be different
from what the parties supposed and which
do not serve the purpose for which the
obligation was contracted;
 prestations which are not yet due and
demandable;
 which, by reason of accident or some other
cause, have acquired a new character
distinct or different from that contemplated
by the parties when the obligation was
constituted.
4. The debtor shall lose the right of choice when among
the prestations whereby he is alternatively bound, only
one is practicable. [Article 1202]
 Applies to specific things only
 The obligation ceases to be alternative, and is
converted into a simple obligation to perform
the only practicable prestation.
 The impossibility of the other prestations,
however, must not be due to the creditor’s acts.
For in such case article 1203 applies.
 This article applies only when debtor has the
right to choose.
 In cases where creditor is granted the right to
choose, article 1205 will apply.
5. The debtor loses the right to choose if the period is
fixed solely for the benefit of the creditor and that
period has not arrived yet. (According to Sir Ulan  )
 Whenever in an obligation a period is
designated, it is presumed to have been
established for the benefit of both the creditor
and the debtor, unless from the tenor of the
same or other circumstances it should appear
that the period has been established in favor of
one or of the other. [Article 1196]
Art. 1201. The choice shall produce no effect except
from the time it has been communicated. (1133)
Notice of Selection or Choice (OWUT) -
Maybe in any form provided it is sufficient to
make the other party know that the election has been
made. It is not subject to any form and may be made:
1. orally;
2. in writing;
3. tacitly;
 4. other unequivocal means
Tacit declaration may be seen (PAS):
1. in the performance of the debtor who has the right to
choose;
2. in the acceptance of a prestation by a creditor when
he has the right of selection; or
3. when the creditor sues for the performance of the
prestation.
N.B.
1. When the debtor, to whom the right of
choice pertains,performs one of the prestations
with the intent to discharge the obligation, he is
released because the selection made may be
implied in the fact of performance.
2. Once the choice is made by the debtor (or by
the creditor orby a third person as the case may
be), the obligation ceases to be alternative from
the moment the selection has been
communicated to the other party. From that
moment, both debtor and creditor are bound by
the selection.
3. A selection once made is binding on the
person who makes it,and he will not therefore be
permitted to renounce his choice and take an
alternative which was first opened to him.
Creditor’s Consent
• The law does not require the other party to
consent to the choice made by the party entitled
to choose.
• A mere declaration of the choice, communicated
to the other party, is sufficient; it is a unilateral
declaration of will.
Plurality of Subjects
• When there are various debtors or creditors, and
the obligation is joint, the consent of all is
necessary to make the selection effective,
because none of them can extinguish the entre
obligation.
• If the obligation is solidary, and there is no
stipulation to the contrary, the choice by one will
be binding personally upon him, but not as to the
others.
Condition or Term
• The selection made by one party cannot be
subjected by him to a condition or term unless
the other party consents thereto.
When Choice is Effective
The choice made by the debtor shall produce
legal effect only from the time it is communicated to
the creditor. Once the choice is communicated to the
creditor, the debtor will no longer be permitted to
renounce his choice and take an alternative which
was first open to him (Reyes vs. Martinez, 55 Phil.
492).
N.B.
1. choice is made by the:
a debtor - debtor shall communicate the choice
to the creditor (D ----> C)
b creditor - creditor shall communicate the choice
to the debtor (C ----> D)
c third person - third person shall
communicate the choice to both the debtor
and the creditor (T ---> D and C)
2. The making of a choice is NOT a right, but a DUTY.
(Jurado)
Effect of Choice (LCI)
• The effect of notice of choice is to limit the
obligation to the object or prestation selected,
with all the consequences which the law
provides.
• The obligation is converted to a simple obligation
to perform the prestation chosen.
• Once the selection has been communicated, it
becomes irrevocable.
Rationale: To allow a change in the selection
after it has been communicated to the other
party, is to expose the latter to damages arising
from preparations he may make on the
assumption that the prestation selected is the
one to be performed
Error as to the Obligation
When the debtor performs one of the prestations,
believing that he has a simple obligation (an ignorance
of the alternatives and on his right to choose), there is
no declaration of the selection, nor a binding
performance of the obligation. There is payment of
what is not due, and the debtor can recover the se, in
accordance with the provisions of the law on Quasi-
Contracts.
Delay in the Making of Choice
Who will make a selection when the entitled party to
choose delays in making his selection?
 The German Doctrine stated that the right to
choose passes automatically to the other party
when there is delay on the part of the party
entitled to choose. (according to
Tolentino, this is acceptable under our law) Can the
creditor enforce the obligation if the debtor has not yet
made his choice?
 It is the debtor’s duty to select at the time when
the performance should be effected. If he does
not do so, the creditor cannot enforce the
obligation. However, the choice can be made by
him (creditor) by applying the principle of
Article 1167 on obligations to do.
 When the obligation consists of not
doing, and the obligor does what has
been forbidden him, it shall be
undone at his expense. [Article 1167]
 The debtor in such case should be deemed to
have waived his right to choose in favor of the
creditor who may exercise such right.
Article 1202. The debtor shall lose the right of choice
when among the prestations whereby he is
alternatively bound, only one is practicable.
Obligation Becomes Simple
Debtor cannot choose impossible or unlawful
prestations. If all the prestations, except one, are
impossible or unlawful, it follows that the debtor can
choose and perform only that one. The obligation
ceases to be alternative, and is converted into a simple
obligation to perform the only feasible or practicable
prestation. Impossibility of the prestations must not be
due to the creditor's acts, for in such case, Article 1203
shall apply. (Tolentino)
According to Luna, alternative obligation is
converted into a simple obligation when (Cc-Cd-Op):
a when the choice is made by the debtor is
communicated to the creditor (8 Manresa 181)
b when the choice has been given to the creditor
and the latter's choice is communicated to the
debtor (Article 1205)
c when among the prestations whereby the
debtor is alternatively bound, only one Is
practicable (Article 1202)
Where Creditor may Choose
The article applies only when the debtor has
the right to choose. When the creditor is granted the
right to choose, Article 1205 will apply when only
one prestation remains practicable, either through
fortuitous event or due to the fault of the debtor.
Art. 1203. If through the creditor's acts the debtor
cannot make a choice according to the terms of the
obligation, the latter may rescind the contract with
damages.
Impossibility Due to the Creditor
• This article is based on the principles of justice.
• If through the creditor’s act the debtor cannot
make a choice, he may (RPR):
• rescind the contract with damages
• elect to perform that which remains if there is
only one prestation possible (Tolentino)
• elect those still remaining if several are still
possible (Tolentino)
• Reason for 2nd and 3rd: The rescission does not
take place automatically but at his option.
Example
1. A contractor, for the consideration of P50,000,
agreed to eitherbuild a house for X on the latter's
residential lot, or construct a road to his hacienda. X
sells his residencial lot. Because of the impossibility
of the prestation to build the house, the contractor
may either construct the road to the hacienda, or
rescind the contract; in the latter case, he may
recoveras damages whatever profits he could have
realized if he had constructed the house and
received the consideration of P50,000.
2. D obliged himself to paint the house of C or to
paint C's car. Ifbefore the due date of the obligation,
C sells his car, D can rescind the obligation plus
damages.
Art. 1204. The creditor shall have a right to
indemnity for damages when, through the fault of
the debtor, all the things which are alternatively the
object of the obligation have been lost, or the
compliance of the obligation has become
impossible.
The indemnity shall be fixed taking as a
basis the value of the last thing which disappeared,
or that of the service which last became impossible.
Damages other than the value of the last thing
or service may also be awarded. (1135a)
Effect of Loss of Object
 This article applies to cases in which the
debtor has the right to choose (this is the General
Rule). Article 1205 is applicable only when the right
of choice belongs to creditor (exception).
Loss by Fault of the Debtor
He (debtor) will become liable for damages under
the terms of this article only when all the prestations
become impossible through his fault.
a. Loss of all - The debtor shall pay the value of
the thing lost, plusdamages. However, if all the
things disappear at the same time, the debtor
may choose the value of any of them, plus
damages. (Luna)
b. Loss of some - The debtor may, without
incurring any liability to
pay damages, deliver any of the remainder, or
that which remains if only one subsists. (Luna)
Effect of Fortuitous Event
a. If all the prestations become impossible - the
obligation is extinguished, the debtor is not
liable for damages
b. If one of the things is lost or one of the
prestations cannot be performed - the debtor
must still comply with the obligation by
delivering or performing that which he shall
choose from among the remainder
c. If all the things are lost except one - the debtor
must still comply with delivering or performing
that which remains
d. If one or more prestations due become
impossible, leaving only one prestation which
becomes impossible by fault of the debtor -
debtor will be liable for damages, with the
value of the last prestation as the basis.
Loss of some due to debtor's fault and the last thing
due to fortuitous event
 If some of the prestations become impossible by
fault of debtor, and then the remaining
prestation become impossible by fortuitous
event - the debtor is liable under this article, but
the basis of the damages will be the value of the
last prestation which become impossible
through the debtor’s fault.
N.B. From and after the loss except one of the
various things, whether due to fortuitous event or
the debtor's fault, the debtor shall lose the right of
choice (Article 1202) and the obligation converted
into a simple obligation. Hence, the loss of the last
subsisting prestation due to a fortuitous event
extinguishes the obligation. (Luna)
Example: D obliged himslef to give C a specific ring or a
specific watch, or a specific radio.
a. the ring, watch or radio are all lost due to fire
and without the
fault of D = obligation is extinguish
b. the ring, watch and radio are lost in that order
due to the fault ofD = D is obliged to pay the
value of the radio plus damages
Art. 1205. When the choice has been expressly given to
the creditor, the obligation shall cease to be alternative
from the day when the selection has been
communicated to the debtor. Until then the
responsibility of the debtor shall be governed by the
following rules:
(1) If one of the things is lost through a
fortuitous event, he shall perform the
obligation by delivering that which the
creditor should choose from among the
remainder, or that which remains if only
one subsists;
(2) If the loss of one of the things occurs
through the fault of the debtor, the
creditor may claim any of those subsisting,
or the price of that which, through the
fault of the former, has disappeared, with a
right to damages;
(3) If all the things are lost through the fault of
the debtor,the choice by the creditor shall
fall upon the price of any one of them, also
with indemnity for damages.
The same rules shall be applied to obligations
to do or not to do in case one, some or all of
the prestations should become impossible.
Selection by the Creditor
• When the creditor has the right to choose, his
selection takes effect from the moment it is
communicated to the debtor.
• Selection can be express or tacit
• There is tacit selection when the creditor
accepts a prestation offered by the debtor, or
brings an action for the enforcement of the
prestations.
Effect of Creditor’s Delay
• The debtor will not incur delay in the
performance of the obligation, even if there is a
definite period fixed.
- Creditor is considered to have
waived the period.
• There will be delay on the part of the debtor
only when the obligation has become a simple
one by exercise of the creditor of his right to
choose.
• Creditor does not make his selection
before the period fixed
- debtor's duty to perform
does not arise because the
particular prestation to be
performed has not been
determined
- creditor in such case must be
considered in his own
inactionto have waived the
period
Art. 1206. When only one prestation has been
agreed upon, but the obligor may render another in
substitution, the obligation is called facultative.
The loss or deterioration of the thing intended
as a substitute, through the negligence of the
obligor, does not render him liable. But once the
substitution has been made, the obligor is liable for
the loss of the substitute on account of his delay,
negligence or fraud. (n)
Distinguished From Facultative
Nature of Facultative Obligation
Defined as an obligation wherein only one
object or prestation has been agreed upon by the
parties of the obligation, but which may be complied
with by delivery of another prestation in substitution.
Characteristic feature- only one prestation is due,
- But if the obligor fails to deliver such object or to
perform such prestation, he can still comply with this
obligation by delivering another object or performing
another prestation in substitution.
• Example: D obliged himself to give C a
specific Rolex watch with the understanding
that D could give his diamond ring as a
substitute.
Loss of the Principal Thing
• Due to fortuitous event - the obligation is
extinguished and the debtor is not obliged to
give the substitute
• Due to the debtor's fault - the debtor shall
answer for the loss of the thing due to his
fault
Loss of Substitute
• Before the substitution is effected, it is not
the prestation that is due; only the principal
prestation is due and enforceable by the
creditor at that time.
- whether due to fortuitous event of
fault of the debtor: does not affect
the debtor's liability to deliver the
principal thing (Luna)
- If the substitute prestation becomes
impossible due to the fault or
negligence of the debtor, the
obligation is not affected and he
 cannot be held liable for damages.
(Tolentino)
- Whatever may be the cause of
impossibility of thesubstitute
prestation is immaterial.
• After the substitution
a. due to fortuitous event - obligation is
extinguished
b. due to the debtor's fault - debtor shall be
liable for theloss or deterioration of the
substitute (on the account of his delay,
negligence or fraud)
Simple Obligation
a. concept - A simple obligation is anobligation
where only oneprestation has been agreed upon
(Luna)
b. example - D obliged himslef to give C a specific
car onOctober 4, 1976.
Compound or Conuctive Obligation
a. concept - A compound or conuctive
obligation is an obligationwherein various things
are due and is extinguished only by the
performance of all of them (Luna)
b. example - D obliged himself to give C on Oct.
4, 1976 a radioand a piano. To be able to
extinguish his obligation D is obliged to give C on
Oct. 4, 1976 both the radio and the piano.
When Substitution Takes Effect
• The rule with respect to alternative obligations
can be applied by analogy; that is, from the
time the debtor communicates to the creditor
that he elects to perform the substitute
prestation.
- From this moment, the substitute prestation is
the onlyone that is due.
• If the principal prestation thereafter becomes
impossible, even by fortuitous event, the
debtor would not be relieved but would still be
obliged to perform the substitute prestation
that he has chosen.
- His obligation has become a simple one to
perform thesubstitute prestation, and he will
be liable for damages for his delay, neglect or
bad faith in the performance.
Section 4 – Joint and Solidary Obligations
Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors
or of two or more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply that each one of the
former has a right to demand, or that each one of
the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with
the prestation. There is a solidary liability only
when the obligation expressly so states, or when
the law or the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity. (1137a)
Joint Obligation (mancomunada simple/ pro rata)
- one in which each of the debtors is liable only for a
proportionate part of the debt, and each
debtor is entitled to only a proportionate part of the
credit
*example: A, B, and C jointly executed a promissory
note worded as follows:
"We promise to pay to the order of X P9,000.
(Sgd.) A, B, and C."
-A is liable for P3,000, B for P3,000 and C for P3,000.
Solidary Obligation (mancomunada solidaria/
joint and several or in solidum)
- one in which each debtor is liable for the entire
obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the
whole obligation.
When Solidary Exists
General Rule: The mere concurrence of two or
more creditors or two or more debtors in one and
the same obligation does NOT imply solidarity.
a. Active - solidarity among creditors
example: A obliged himself to pay P30,000 to solidary
creditors B, C, anf D. Each of the creditors is entitled
to demand payment of the whole P30,000. Thus, B,
or C, or D can demand payment of P30,000 from A.
b. Passive - solidarity among debtors
*example: A, B and C executed a
promissory note worded as follows:
"I promise to pay X or order the sum of
P30,000.
(Sgd.) A, B, and C."
- X is entitled to demand payment to demand
the payment of P30,000 from A, or from B, or from
C.
c. Mixed - solidarity on the part of the creditors and
debtors
 *example: A, B, and C executed a
promissory note worded as follows:
"We do hereby slidarily promise to pay to the
order of solidary creditors L, M, and N the sum of
P30,000.
(Sgd.) A, B, and C - L,
or M, or N shall be entitled to demand
payment of the whole
P30,000 from A, or from B or from C.
Joint debtors - solidary creditors
*example: A and B executed a promissory note
worded as follows:
"We promise to pay to solidary creditors C and
D P10,000.
(Sgd.) A, B"
- C or D as solidary creditors shall be entitles to
demand payment of the whole P10,000 . But since
the debtors are bound jointly, C or D shall be
entitled to demand payment of no more than
P5,000 from A and another P5,000 from B.
Solidary debtors - joint creditors
*example: A and B executed a promisory note
worded as follows: "We do hereby solidarily
promise to pay to the order of C and D P10,000.
(Sgd.) A, B"
- As solidary debtors, A or B may be compelled to
pay the whole P10,000. But since the creditors are
bound jointly, C is entitled to demand the
payment of P5,000 from A, or B and D is entitled to
demand payment of the other P5,000 from A or B.
Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the
wording of the obligations to which the preceding
article refers the contrary does not appear, the
credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided
into as many shares as there are creditors or
debtors, the credits or debts being considered
distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of
Court governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a)
Joint Obligation
a. The debt shall be divided into as many equal
shares as there are creditors or debtors, the
credits on the debts being considered distinct
from each other. (Luna)
b. In case of non-payment, only one action
should be files in court. (Luna)
Presumption of Joint Character
When two persons are liable under a
contract or under judgment, and no words
appear in the contract or the judgment to make
each liable for the entire obligation, the
presumption is that their obligation is joint.
3 Exceptions to the presumption (ELN):
a. when the obligation expressly states that there is
solidarity
b. when the law requires solidarity
c. when the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity
Effect of Joint Liability
a. the demand by one creditor upon one debtor,
produces the effects of default only with
respect to the creditor who demanded and the
debtor on whom the demand was made, but
not with respect to others.
b. the interruption of prescription by the judicial
demand of one creditor upon a debtor does
not benefit the other creditors nor interrupt
the prescription as to the other debtors.
Similarly, partial payment or acknowledgment
made by one of several joint debtors does not
stop the running of the statute of limitations as
to the others.
c. the vices of each obligation arising from
personal defect of a particular creditor or
debtor does not affect the obligation or rights
of the others.
d. the insolvency of a debtor does not increase
the responsibilityof his co-debtors, nor does it
authorize a creditor to demand anything from
his co-creditors.
e. in Joint Divisible Obligation (JDO)
• the defense of res judicata is not
extended from one debtor to
another.
• nature of the obligation is susceptible
to partial fulfillment.
(Dean Ulan)
• example: A and B jointly obliged themselves
to give C the sum of P60.00.
Art. 1209. If the division is impossible, the right of the
creditors may be prejudiced only by their collective
acts, and the debt can be enforced only by proceeding
against all the debtors. If one of the latter should be
insolvent, the others shall not be liable for his share.
(1139)
Joint Indivisible Obligations (JIO)
Several debtors and creditors, but the
prestation is indivisible, the obligation is joint, unless
solidarity has been stipulated. - preserves the two
characteristics of the joint obligation, in that no
creditor can do an act prejudicial to others, and no
debtor can be made to answer for the others.
However, its fulfillment requires the concurrence of
all the debtors although each for his part. On the side
of the creditors, collective action is expressly required
for acts which may be prejudicial. - example: A and B
jointly obliged themselves to give C a specific cow.
Effects on Creditors (according to Luna)
a. To be able to compel performance of the
obligation, all the creditors should act collectively.
A demand by one or some but less than all the
creditors is not effective.
longer be fulfilled or performed. The obligation
now is converted into one of indemnity for
damages.
Effect of insolvency of a debtor - if one of the joint
debtors shall be insolvent, the others shall not be
liable for his share.
N.B. Absence of stipulation of how much is the
actual share of the debtors, the presumption is
equal. (Dean Ulan)
Art. 1210. The indivisibility of an obligation does
not necessarily give rise to solidarity. Nor does
solidarity of itself imply indivisibility.

b. The right of the creditors may be prejudiced only

by their collective acts.
- all creditors renounce the obligation:
extinguished - renunciation made by one
creditor w/o consent of the other: only the
share of the former is extinguished; other
creditors can no longer demand the
delivery of the thing; obligation is
converted into an obligation to pay its
value
Effects on Debtors (according to Luna)
a. The debt can be enforced only on
proceedings against all the creditors. A
demand against one or some but less than all
the debtor/debtors against whom the demand
has been made are not obliged to deliver the
thing.

b. extinguish the obligation - payment

should be made to all the creditors
N.B. 1. according to Luna:
c. if any of the debtors is insolvent - the
other shall not be liable for his share
d. any of the debtors refuses to deliver the
thing - obligation is converted into an
obligation to pay the value of the thing
• the value of the thing shall be shared
by all debtors
• whole damages shall be borne by the
debtor who does not comply with this
undertaking
Effect of breach - if one of the joint debtors fails to
comply with his undertaking the obligation can no
a solidarity does NOT imply indivisibility (An
obligation may be divisible even if it is solidum)
b indivisibility does NOT imply solidarity (mere
fact that the object of the obligation is not
susceptible of partial performance does not
mean that each of the debtor is liable for the
entire obligation.) c. example of:
 solidary divisible obligation: A and B
solidarily obliged themselves to give C
P50,000 on March 15, 2011 and
P50,000 on May 1, 2011.
 solidary indivisible obligation: A and B
solidarily obliged themselves to give C a
specific horse
2. according to Dean Ulan
• if one of the debtors refuses to deliver the
thing, the other debtors cannot enforce the
delivery (the obligation becomes divisible)
• refusal of the debtor to deliver the thing
without just cause - liable for damages
Art. 1211. Solidarity may exist although the creditors
and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner
and by the same periods and conditions. (1140)
Kinds of solidarity (APM):
a. Active solidarity - one that exists among creditors.
Creation of a relationship of mutual agency among
the solidary creditors by virtue of which each debtor
is empowered to exercise against the debtor or
debtors not only the rights which correspond to
him, but also all the rights which correspond to the
other creditors, with the consequent obligation to
render an accounting of his acts to such creditor.
Juridical Effects:
1. Since it is a reciprocal agency, the death of a
solidary creditor doesnot transmit the solidary to
each of his heirs but to all of them taken together.
2. Each creditor represents the others in the act of
receiving payment, and in all other acts which tend
to secure the credit or make it more advantageous.
Hence, if he receives only a partial payment, he must
divide it among the other creditors. He can interrupt
the period of prescription or render the debtor in
default, for the benefit of all other creditors.
3. One creditor, however, does not represent the
others in such acts as novation, compensation and
remission. In these cases, even if the debtor is
released, the other creditors can still enforce their
rights against the creditor who made the novation,
compensation or remission.
4. The credit and its benefits are divided equally
among them to divide differently. Hence, once the
credit is collected, an accounting and distribution of
the amount collected should follow.
5. The debtor may pay to any solidary creditor, but if
a judicial demand is made on him, he must pay only
to the plaintiff.
6. Each creditor may renounce his right even against
the will of the debtor, and the latter need not
thereafter pay the obligation to the former.
b. Passive solidarity - one that exists among
debtors. Each debtor can be made to answer for
the others, with the right on the part of the debtor-
payor to recover from the others their respective
shares. Similar to mutual guaranty.
Juridical Effects:
1. Each debtor can be required to pay the entire
obligation; but after payment, he can recover from
the co-debtors their respective shares.
2. The debtor who is required to pay may set up by
way of compensation his own claim against the
creditor, in this case, the effect is the same as that of
payment.
3. The total remission of debt in favor of a debtor
releases all the debtors; but when remission affects
only the share of one debtor, the other debtors are
still liable for the balance of the obligation.
4. All the debtors are liable for the loss of the thing
due even if such loss is caused by the fault of only one
of them, or by fortuitous event after one of the
debtors has incurred delay.
5. The interruption of prescription as to one debtor
affects all the others; but renunciation by one debtor
of prescription already had does not prejudice the
others, because the extinguishment of the obligation
by prescription extinguishes also the mutual
representation among the solidary debtors.
6. The interests due by reason of the delay of one of
the debtors are borne by all of them.
c. Mixed solidarity- on the part of both creditors
and debtors
N.B. According to Luna:
Solidarity does NOT require that the parties be
bound in the same manner. An obligation is solidary
if the parties agreed or the law intended it to be in
solidum.
*example:
X, Y and Z solidarily onliged themselves to give C
P15,000 according to the following terms:
X to pay on demand;
Y, in 2012;
Z, if C passes the CPA exam.
 Today, C can demand payment of P5,000, the share
of X out of the P15,000, against X or Z. This is so
because the shares of Y and Z have not yet matured. In
2012, C can demand P5,000, the share of Y against X
and Z. The moment C passes the CPA exams, C may
demand P5,000, the share of Z against any of the three
debtors.
Art. 1212. Each one of the solidary creditors may do
whatever may be useful to others, but not anything
which may be prejudicial to the latter.
- consequence of the relationship of mutual agency
existing among solidary creditors
Beneficial acts of the creditor (DIDS):
• may demand the obligation to one, some or
all debtors;
• may interrupt prescription;
• constitute the debtor in default; or
• bring suit so that the obligation may produce
interest.
Effect of beneficial act: if obligation has been
performed, the other creditors will have the right to
demand from the creditor who received the payment
the shares corresponding to them.
Prejudicial acts of the creditor:
Remission is an act that is literally prejudice to the
creditors, but it is authorized under Article 1215, along
with novation, compensation, and merger or confusion.
To harmonize:
Art. 1212 = effect of the prejudicial acts among the
creditors themselves
Art 1215 = effect of the prejudicial acts among the
creditors and the debtor/s. *which are valid*
*Creditors have rights that subsist and can be
enforced against the creditor who performed the
act alone. (Tolentino) Effect of prejudicial act:
indemnifying the other creditors for damages.
Mutual Agency
Solidary obligation implies mutual agency.
Hence, each one of the creditors may, even without the
knowledge of the other, do whatever may be useful to
them. Although prejudicial acts will produce legal effect
and extinguish the obligation of the debtor, the same
will not, however, be valid against the creditors who did
not give their consent.
*example: D is indebted to solidary creditors A dn B
for P10,000. A may, even without the knowledge of
B, demand the payment of P10,000 because each
one of the solidary creditors may do whatever may
be useful to the other creditors may do whatever
may be useful to the other creditors even without
the knowledge of the latter. If w/o the knowledge of
A, B remits the obligation, the obligation of D would
be extinguished, but B is obliged to give to A his
share of P5,000.
Art. 1213. A solidary creditor cannot assign his
rights without the consent of the others.
- solidary creditor is an agent of the other creditors-
mutual agency implies mutual confidence which may
take into account the personal qualifications of each
creditor
Effects of Unauthorized transfer:
It is implied, that such cannot be made, and the co-
creditors and debtors are not bound to recognize the
assignment, and the assignee is not regarded as a
solidary creditor.
• payment to that assignee is considered a
payment to a third person and will not
extinguish the obligation
• a suit filed by such assignee will not
interrupt the prescription- the creditor-
assignor still has a liability to his co-
creditors for damages which may have
been incurred by them as a result of the
assignment
If the assignment is made to a co-creditor, consent is
not necessary because the mutual confidence from the
other creditors already exist.
Art. 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the
solidary creditors; but if any demand, judicial or
extrajudicial, has been made by one of them,
payment should be made to him.
Judicial Demand:
Generally, each solidary creditor is a tacit mutual
representative of each other in demanding payment.
But, if one creditor sues the debtor/s, the tacit
representation by the other creditors is considered
revoked.
• Creditors who did not sue will lose their
representation of the others
 • A payment to the creditor/s who did not sue
will be considered as payment to a third
person, in so far as the shares of the others in
the credit are concerned.
• If payee did not turn the shares of the other
creditors who demanded, the debtor can still
be required to pay the creditor-plaintiff minus
the share of the payee The action, however,
does not definitely eliminate the other
creditors, but only during the time the effect of
the actions exist. If action is dismissed, the
other creditors may in turn sue the debtor.
Extrajudicial Demand:
Demand made extrajudicial has the same effect as
judicial demand in terminating the mutual
representation of among the solidary creditors and
making the creditor who demanded as the agency
alone.
Tolentino: If one creditor should make an
extrajudicial demand, and then takes no further step
to enforce collection in court, all the other creditors
are barred forever from filing an action to demand
payment judicially, and the debt may never be
collected. In this case, such same effect is juridically
erroneous and impractical.
• If all or several creditors demand payment
separately, the debtor should pay the first one
who notified him.
• If they demand at the same time, or in a single
action or written demand, the debtor
preserves his right to choose whomever
payment will be made by him
• If partial payment has been made before the
demand arises, the debtor can pay the creditor
the full obligation minus the obligation he
already performed. To not do so will result in
unjust enrichment.
• In mixed solidarity, the debtors who were not
demanded by the creditor to pay him can still
pay the other creditors who did not make the
demand.
Payment of Solidary Obligation
General Rule: payment to any one of the solidary
creditor extinguishes the obligation. If any demand has
been made by any of the creditors, the debtor against
whom the demand was made should pay only to that
creditor. If he pays to any other creditor, the payment is
not valid.
Example
A and B are solidary indebted to solidary creditors
C and D in the amount of P10,000. A may pay P10,000
to C or D. However, if a demand is made only to A
Art. 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion or
remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary
creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall
extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the
provisions of Article 1219.
The creditor who may have executed the any of
these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be
liable to the others for the share in the obligation
corresponding to them.
Novation – extinguishment of an obligation by the
substitution or change of the obligation by a
subsequent which extinguishes or modifies the first,
either by changing the object or principal conditions,
or by substituting the person of the debtor, or by
subrogating a third person in the third rights of the
creditor.
The solidary debtor may release the others by
binding himself alone in their place in favor of the
creditor. The debtor who effects the novation cannot, by
himself, bind the other to a new debt without their
consent.
Mere extension of time for payment given by the
creditor to a solidary debtor does not release the others
from the obligation. *In suretyship: as sureties are
bound in solidum, material alteration made by the
creditor and the principal debtor, without the
knowledge and consent of the sureties, completely
discharges the sureties from all liability in the contract
of suretyship.
An extension of time granted to the debtor by the
creditor extinguishes the liability of the others, but
where the sureties are liable for different payments, an
extension of time with one or more will not affect the
liability of the sureties for the others.
Dation in payment – the delivery of a specific object as
a substitute for the performance of the obligation
• if in a form of a promise, it amounts to a
novation
• it should be treated as a payment, as it is
essentially so Compensation – a mode of
extinguishment to the concurrent amount,
the obligation of those persons who in their
own right are reciprocally debtors and
creditors of each other
Confusion – merger of qualities of creditor and
debtor in one and the same person with respect to
one and the same obligation If the compensation or
confusion is partial, and there is doubt as to what
part of the debt it should be applied, the rules on
application of payments shall govern. If it is total, the
obligation is extinguished, leaving the liability for
reimbursement within each group.
Remission – is an act of pure liberality by virtue of
which, the creditor, without having received any
compensation or equivalent, renounces his right to
enforce the obligation, thereby extinguishing the
same either in its entirety or in the part or aspect
thereof to which the remission refers.
• When one creditor makes the remission =
extinguishes the obligation to the extent
which is made, but the creditor shall be
liable to his co-creditors for their shares
• When several of the creditors make the
remission = all will be liable for the shares of
the creditors who did not remit, and if one is
insolvent, his share shall be made up by the
others who concurred in the remission.
• Remission covers the entire obligation =
obligation is totally extinguished, the entire
juridical relation among the debtors is
terminated altogether
• Remission in favor of the debtor, if partial =
character as solidary debtor still remains
• Remission in favor of the debtor, if full =
ceases to have any relation with the
creditors, unless the continuation of his
solidary relation has been expressly
reserved. However he is still bound with
respect to his co-debtors, in case of
insolvency of one debtor, the released
debtor still has to pay his share in the portion
of the insolvent. He also cannot recover
anything from his co-debtor, since remission
is a gratuitous act. * Rules with regards to
the debtors shall not apply when the debt
was fully paid by anyone of the debtors
before the remission was made.
Effects of the Acts:
• Between creditors and debtors – any of the
acts will extinguish the obligation, therefore
no creditor may sue the debtor after such act
• Between co-creditors – any act of them in
extinguishing the obligation shall not
prejudice the rights of the other creditors to
recover their shares in the obligation to the
creditor who effected any of the acts
mentioned.
• Between co-debtors – the debtor whose
obligation was extinguished cannot recover
from his other co-debtors more than their
respective shares in whatever he may have
given up or lost as the consideration for the
extinguishment of the obligation
• In total compensation, he can recover from
the others their respective shares in the
obligation, since he has given his own credit
to extinguish the obligation
• In merger, if one co-debtor acquires the
whole credit, he can still demand from the
other debtors their respective shares
• In remission, the debtor whose remission
was made cannot recover anything from the
other debtors since he gives or loses nothing.
Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of
the solidary debtors or some or all of them
simultaneously. The demand made against one of
them shall not be an obstacle to those which may
subsequently be directed against the others, so long as
the debt has not been fully collected.
• the solidary debtors may be sued
simultaneously in one suit or successively in
different actions.
• this article is not of public interest, therefore
the parties may validly stipulate that the
solidary debtors can only be sued
simultaneously or provide for the order in which
the debtors may be sued individually.
Passive Solidarity and Suretyship:
Similarities:
1. stands for some person
2. after payment, may require that they be
reimbursed
Liability of Solidary Debtors:
• the creditors may bring an action against the
debtors and sureties, either alone or together
 with the principal debtor, even if the surety is
not included in the first suit.
• If the principal debtor is held in default, the
surety is also held in default, since his
obligation is as the same as the principal
• Solidary co-debtor is not released from his
liability even if the creditor brought an action
against a co-debtor first, caused execution on
the properties of such co-debtor, which was
later voluntarily relinquished due to a valid
third-party claim
Judgment as Regards Creditors:
• If it is favorable to the creditor, it inures to the
benefit of cocreditors.
• If it is adverse to the creditor-plaintiff, it can be
set up against the other co-creditors in
subsequent actions, unless it is founded on a
cause personal to the creditor-plaintiff in the
first action.
Judgment as Regards Debtors:
• If it is favorable to the creditor-plaintiff, but the
defendant-debtor is insolvent, the other
debtors can still be sued until the debt is fully
paid. Judgment against one debtor cannot be
enforced against the others; a new action is
needed. A judgment rendered against several
defendants can be revived against only one of
them.
• If it is favorable to the defendant-debtor, it
amounts to an extinguishment of the
obligation with respect to him, and it must
necessarily inure to the benefit of the other co-
debtors, except when the cause is personal to
the defendant-debtor.
Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary
debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more
solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose
which offer to accept.
He who made the payment may claim from
his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to
each, with the interest for the payment already
made. If the payment is made before the debt is
due, no interest for the intervening period may be
demanded. When one of the solidary debtors
cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse his
share to the debtor paying the obligation, such
share shall be borne by all his co-debtors, in
proportion to the debt of each.
*Payment – consists in the delivery of the thing or
the rendition (rendering) of the service whish is the
object of the obligation. *Interest – compensation
for the use of borrowed money
Payment by a Solidary Debtor:
- results in the release from liability of the other
debtors to the creditor.
- Where one of several persons who are sued upon a
joint and several liability elects to pay the whole,
such person may be properly substituted in the same
action as plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing
contribution from his forme associates.
- Gives birth to a right in favor of the paying debtor,
and imposes on the other co-debtors the duty to pay
him their shares in the discharged obligation.
- The right of the paying co-debtor to be reimbursed
is not based on the original obligation but upon the
payment made by him, hence he is only entitled to
claim from his co-debtors the share pertaining to
each with interest on the amount advanced.
• If partial payment has been made, the solidary
debtor can only recover reimbursement from
the co-debtor only in so far as hi payment
exceeded his share of the obligation.
• In reimbursement, when the solidary debtor
pays the total obligation, the resulting
obligation of the other co-debtors to reimburse
him becomes joint.
• If one, by insolvency, cannot pay his share in
the reimbursement, the others, including the
one who paid, shall bear such share
proportionately.
Note: Kat and our other classmates said that since
the article stated “in proportion to the debt of each”,
the share of the insolvent should not be divided
equally among the remaining co-debtors, but should
be dependent in their share, in cases when each
debtor is required to pay different amounts of debt.
To get this, according to Rayn, we should first add
the shares of the remaining co-debtors, and after get
the proportion of each debtor based on the sum. For
example, A, B, and C are solidary debtors to pay a
total of $900,000. A will pay $400,000, B will pay
$300,000, and C will pay $200,000. A paid the whole
amount already but B became insolvent. So add A
and C’s share first = 400,000+200,000=600,000. Then
divide the shares from the sum, A=4/6 or 2/3 and
C=3/6 or 1/3. Then apply it to B’s share, which is
$300,000. A’s share=(2x300,000)/3=.200,000 and C’s
share=(1x300,000)/3=100,000. I’m not sure if this is
really right but I hope it helps. =)Art. 1218. Payment
by a solidary debtor shall not entitle him to
reimbursement from his co-debtors if such payment
is made after the obligation has prescribed or
become illegal. (n) • No reimbursement if:
• Obligation PRESCRIBES
• Obligation becomes ILLEGAL (Law has been
passed, making such prestation illegal)
• Prescriptive period of actions:
• Within 10 years (upon a written contract, upon
an
obligation created by law)
• Within 6 years (upon an oral contract, upon a
quasi-contract)
• Within 4 years (upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff, upon a quasi-delict)
• The statute of limitations, however, may be
superseded or modified by a contract between
parties.
• Neither can a solidary debtor who pays the
obligation which has already prescribed
recover from the creditor has been paid by him
• In other cases, where the obligation no longer
exists, he can recover from the creditor the
amount paid, under the rules on quasicontract.
Art. 1219. The remission made by the creditor of the
share which affects one of the solidary debtors does
not release the latter from his responsibility towards
the co-debtors, in case the debt had been totally paid
by anyone of them before the remission was effected.
(1146a)
• To exempt the co-debtor whose part is thus
subsequently remitted will give way to fraud.
• Any belated (delayed) remission by the creditor
of the share of any of the debtor has no effect
on the internal relationships of the codebtors.
• A, B, C solidarily owe D P1,500.00. B paid the
entire obligation. After which, D remitted the
share of C. B can collect P500.00 each from A
and C even if the share of C in the obligation
had been remitted.
• After the prior payment of the entire
obligation, there is nothing to remit because
the obligation has been extinguished.
• A, B, C solidarily owe D P1,500.00. D remitted
the share of C. Thereafter, B paid the entire
obligation. B can collect P500.00 from A but
not from C. However, B may ask D to give back
P500 which is the supposed-to-be share of C.
• What is the effect of the insolvency of anyone
of the remaining debtors?
In the above case, there are three views:
• The creditor should bear the loss due to
insolvency. Thus, in the example given the
share of the insolvent debtor is P2,000, and
each of the other four debtors should
contribute P500 to cover it. The P500 due from
the debtor whose share was remitted, is
considered as included in the remission; hence,
the debtor who paid the full balance of P8,000
can recover the P500 from the creditor as a
payment of what is not true.
• Tolentino: This view presumes that the creditor
has remitted more than the share of the
debtor he has favoured; it is juridically
unsound to consider a gratuitous act as
extending beyond the intent of the grantor-
creditor. The rule is that gratuitous acts should
be restrictively construed as to permit the least
transmission of rights.
• The remission of the share of the one of the
debtors does not affect his obligation to
contribute to the share of an insolvent
codebtor. In other words, in the given example
the debtor whose share was remitted must pay
P500 to the debtor who paid the entire
balance of P8,000.
• Tolentino: This view is justified by: In every
solidarity, there is a dual relationship—(1) the
relation between the creditor and the debtors;
(2) the relation among the debtors themselves.
When a creditor remits the share of any
debtor, he can affect only the first relation,
because he is totally a stranger to the second
relation. This relationship among the debtors is
expressly governed by law in the last paragraph
of Art. 1217, which imposes on every co-
debtor the duty of contributing to the share of
the insolvent debtor. This is a provision that
does not affect the creditor, and no act of the
creditor should affect the relation to the
debtors under it. the credit cannot therefore,
by his act exempt any debtor from the
obligation imposed by it.
 • The share of the insolvent must be divided only
among the other co-debtors, excluding the one
whose share has been remitted. In other
words, the debtor who paid the whole
obligation of P8,000, in the example given, can
recover only from the other two solvent
debtors who shall reimburse one-third each of
the amount paid to the creditor
• Tolentino: Like the first, this is also
unacceptable because it makes the remission
of the share of one debtor increase the burden
of the other debtors without their consent.
Art. 1220. The remission of the whole obligation,
obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not
entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
(n)
• There is nothing to be reimbursed because he
did not not spend any money, the remission
being a gratuitous act.
Art. 1221. If the thing has been lost or if the
prestation has become impossible without the fault
of the solidary debtors, the obligation shall be
extinguished.
If there was fault on the part of any one of
them, all shall be responsible to the creditor, for the
price and the payment of damages and interest,
without prejudice to their action against the guilty
or negligent debtor.
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 or extrajudicial demand upon
him by the creditor, the provisions of the preceding
paragraph shall apply. (1147a)
• Application is limited to the case of non-
performance because of the loss of the thing
or impossibility of the prestation that is due—
• Fortuitous event (debtor has no fault or delay)
— obligation is extinguished
• Fault of any of the debtor—all are liable
because of their mutual agency
• Fortuitous event (after a debtor has incurred in
delay) —obligation is converted into obligation
to pay indemnity, consisting of the price,
damages and interest. The creditor can recover
such to any of the debtors, guilty or not. In the
event that the innocent debtor pays the
indemnity, the guilty should reimburse him.
The guilty debtor shoulders all the
consequences of the loss because of his fault
and delay; hence, he cannot reimburse from
the innocent ones the indemnity.
• If the thing due was not lost, but there is
merely a delay, fraud or negligence on the part
of one of the solidary debtors, all (including the
innocent) debtors will share in the payment of
the PRINCIPAL prestation. The damages and
interest imposed will be borne by the guilty
debtor.
Art. 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the
creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived
from the nature of the obligation and of those which
are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With
respect to those which personally belong to the others,
he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part
of the debt for which the latter are responsible.
(1148a)
• Defenses available to a solidary debtor when
sued by the creditor:
• Defenses derived from the nature of the
obligation—those which may contribute to
weaken or destroy the vinculum juris existing
between the debtor and creditor such as
payment, prescription, remission, statute of
frauds, presence of vices of consent, etc.
• Defenses personal to the debtor-defendant—
may be either total or partial; such as minority,
insanity and others purely personal to him; if
the personal takes the form of special terms or
conditions affecting his part of the obligation,
he may utilize them only with respect to his
part, but he can still be sued for the portions
not subject to the terms or conditions because
he is solidary liable.
• Defenses personal to the other solidary
debtors —the debtor being sued may also set
up defenses which are personal to the other
solidary debtors, whether such defenses affect
the capacity or consent of such debtors or only
refer to terms or conditions affecting their
shares.