SECTION 4- JOINT AND SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS

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.
In a situation involving multiple creditors or debtors, it doesn't automatically mean that each
creditor can demand full payment or each debtor must individually pay the entire amount
owed. Solidary liability, where this is the case, only applies when the obligation explicitly
states it or when the law or nature of the obligation requires it; otherwise, the responsibility is
divided accordingly among the parties involved.
Suppose two siblings, Sarah and John, decide to rent an apartment together. The lease
agreement they sign states that they have solidary liability for the monthly rent of $1,000. This
means that the landlord can demand the entire $1,000 from either Sarah or John individually,
or they can coordinate between themselves to split the rent as they see fit. If Sarah pays the
full rent one month, she can ask John to reimburse her for his share. However, if John fails to
pay his portion, the landlord can still require Sarah to cover the entire rent because of their
solidary liability as stated in the lease agreement.

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.
if there's no clear indication from the law, the type of obligation, or the specific wording of an
agreement, then it's assumed that the credit or debt should be divided equally among the
creditors or debtors. In other words, if there are three people owed money or three people
owing money, it's presumed that the amount should be split into three equal parts. Each
person's share is considered separate, and they can deal with it individually, but there are
rules about how many separate legal actions can be taken if things get complicated. These
rules prevent too many lawsuits from happening at once

Imagine three friends, Alice, Bob, and Carol, lend $3,000 to their friend Dave. However,
there's no specific agreement about how this debt should be divided among the three of them.
According to the statement you provided, if there are no clear instructions or legal
requirements, the $3,000 debt would be presumed to be divided equally among Alice, Bob,
and Carol. So, each of them is considered to be owed $1,000 by Dave, and they can
individually pursue Dave for their $1,000 share. If Dave fails to pay, each of them could
potentially take legal action against him separately for their respective $1,000 debts, subject
to the rules governing multiple legal actions.

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.
If it's not possible to divide a debt or credit among multiple people, the creditors (the people
owed money) can only take action collectively, meaning they have to work together. And if
they want to enforce the debt, they have to go after all the debtors (the people who owe
money).

However, if one of the debtors is unable to pay because they're insolvent (broke), the other
debtors are not responsible for covering that person's share of the debt. In simpler terms, if
you can't split the debt among the debtors, all the creditors must work together to get their
money, and if one debtor can't pay, the others don't have to make up for it

Suppose three friends, Alex, Ben, and Chris, jointly borrow $3,000 from a bank to start a small
business. They agree that they're equally responsible for repaying the loan. However, due to
unforeseen circumstances, they can't continue the business and need to repay the loan.

According to the statement you provided, if it's impossible to split the debt among them, then
all three friends must work together to figure out how to repay the $3,000. They can't
individually demand repayment from each other. So, if Alex tries to get $1,000 from both Ben
and Chris separately, it wouldn't work.

Furthermore, if Chris faces financial difficulties and can't contribute his share (let's say
$1,000), Alex and Ben are not obligated to cover Chris's portion. In other words, if Chris is
unable to pay his $1,000, it doesn't automatically mean that Alex and Ben have to make up
for it.

1210- THE INDIVISIBILITY OF AN OBLIGATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY GIVE RISE

TO SOLIDARITY. NOR DOES SOLIDARITY OF ITSELF IMPLY INDIVISIBILITY.
Some obligations can't be split, but that doesn't mean everyone involved has to share the
burden equally. And when multiple parties share a responsibility, it doesn't mean the obligation
can't be divided into separate parts if needed. The two concepts, indivisibility and solidarity,
are separate and don't always go hand in hand.

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob, take out a joint loan for $2,000 to buy a car. The loan
agreement states that they are jointly and severally liable for the entire $2,000 debt.

In this scenario, the obligation (repaying the $2,000 loan) is indivisible because the lender
can demand the full amount from either Alice or Bob individually, and they would both be
responsible for the entire $2,000.

However, let's consider another situation: Alice and Bob each owe $1,000 to a different friend,
Carol and Dave, respectively. Now, they have a joint responsibility, or solidarity, in paying
back their separate debts. Solidarity in this case means they are collectively responsible for
ensuring both debts are paid, but the debts themselves (Alice's $1,000 to Carol and Bob's
$1,000 to Dave) are divisible and separate. If Alice pays her $1,000 to Carol, and Bob pays
his $1,000 to Dave, they've fulfilled their solidarity obligation, even though the debts were
divisible into separate parts. So, solidarity doesn't imply indivisibility in this example.
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.
This statement means that even if the creditors (the people or entities owed money) and the
debtors (the people or entities who owe money) have different terms, conditions, or timelines
for their obligations, they can still have a form of shared responsibility or solidarity.

In simpler terms, let's say one person owes money to two others, and they have different
repayment schedules or rules. Solidarity can still exist, meaning both creditors can work
together to ensure the debt is paid, even if they have different terms for when and how they
expect to be repaid.

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob, lend money to their mutual friend, Carol. Alice lends Carol
$1,000 and expects to be repaid in six months, while Bob lends Carol $500 but wants to be
repaid in one year.

Now, even though Alice and Bob have different repayment terms, they can still have solidarity
in their effort to ensure that Carol repays her debts. If Carol is having trouble making
payments, Alice and Bob can work together to talk to Carol and find a solution, like extending
the repayment period or adjusting the terms, even though those terms initially differed. So, in
this situation, solidarity exists despite the creditors (Alice and Bob) having different conditions
for repayment.

1212- EACH ONE OF THE SOLIDARY CREDITORS MAY DO WHATEVER MAY BE

USEFUL TO THE OTHERS, BUT NOT ANYTHING WHICH MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
LATTER.
This statement means that when there are multiple creditors who share a solidary obligation
(joint responsibility for a debt), each creditor can take actions that benefit the others, but they
shouldn't take actions that harm the others.

In simpler terms, if you and someone else are owed money together, you can work together
to collect the debt or take actions that help everyone get paid. However, you should avoid
doing anything that could harm the other person's chances of getting their share of the debt.
It's about cooperation and not causing problems for each other in the process of collecting
the money you're owed.

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob, are owed $1,000 each by their mutual friend, Carol. They
both have solidary credit (joint responsibility) for this debt. Now, here's how the principle
applies:

Doing What's Helpful: Alice and Bob can work together to contact Carol, remind her of the
debt, and negotiate a repayment plan. They can also hire a debt collector or take legal action
if necessary, all with the aim of ensuring they both get their $1,000 back.

Avoiding Harm: However, Alice should not take actions that might harm Bob's chances of
getting his $1,000. For instance, if Alice decides to accept a partial payment from Carol and
releases her from further obligations without consulting Bob, this could be prejudicial (harmful)
to Bob's ability to collect his debt. So, Alice needs to consider Bob's interests and not make
decisions that could negatively affect him in their joint pursuit of the debt.

1213- A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others.
This statement means that if there are multiple creditors who share a solidary obligation (joint
responsibility for a debt), one of them can't transfer or give away their rights to collect the debt
to someone else without getting approval from the other creditors.

In simpler terms, if you and someone else are owed money together, you can't decide to let
another person collect the debt on your behalf without asking for the other person's
agreement. All the creditors need to agree on any changes in how they pursue the debt.

Imagine two friends, Alice and Bob, are solidary creditors owed $1,000 each by their friend
Carol. They share the responsibility for collecting this debt.

Now, if Alice wants to assign her right to collect her $1,000 to her cousin Jane, she can't do it
without Bob's consent. Both Alice and Bob need to agree on this change. Jane can't start
collecting the debt unless both Alice and Bob are okay with it. So, all the creditors must be in
agreement when transferring their rights to collect the debt to someone else.

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.
This statement means that if someone owes money to multiple creditors who share a solidary
obligation (joint responsibility for the debt), the debtor can choose to pay any one of those
creditors. However, if one of the creditors has already asked for the money through legal or
formal means (like sending a demand letter or taking legal action), then the debtor must make
the payment to that specific creditor who made the demand.

In simpler terms, if you owe money to a group of people and one of them has already taken
official steps to collect the debt, you need to pay that person. Otherwise, you can pick any of
the creditors to pay if no one has made a formal request for payment.

Imagine a person named Alex owes $1,000 to three friends: Sarah, John, and Mike. They are
solidary creditors, meaning any of them can demand the full $1,000 from Alex.

Now, if Sarah, one of the creditors, sends Alex a formal letter demanding payment, Alex is
obligated to pay Sarah the $1,000. Even if John and Mike haven't asked for the money yet,
since Sarah has already made a formal demand, the payment must go to her.

However, if none of the creditors have made a formal request, Alex can choose to pay any
one of them. For instance, if Alex decides to pay John $1,000, that's acceptable as long as
none of the creditors have initiated a formal demand.
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.
This statement means that if there are multiple people who owe money together (solidary
debtors), the creditor can choose to go after any one of them to collect the debt. They can
also decide to go after some or all of them at the same time.

If the creditor goes after one of the debtors, it doesn't stop them from later going after the
others as well, as long as the full debt hasn't been collected yet. So, if one debtor pays only
a part of the debt, the creditor can still pursue the others for the remaining amount.

In simple terms, if a group of people owe money together, the person owed can choose to
collect from any one of them, or even from several at once. Going after one person doesn't
prevent them from going after the others, as long as the full amount owed hasn't been
completely paid off.

Imagine three friends, Alice, Bob, and Carol, owe $1,000 collectively to their landlord for rent.
They are all solidary debtors, which means they share joint responsibility for the full $1,000.

Now, the landlord can choose to collect the full $1,000 from any one of them. For instance, if
the landlord decides to ask Alice for the entire amount, Alice is obligated to pay the full $1,000.

However, if Alice only pays $500, the landlord can still pursue Bob and Carol for the remaining
$500, because the full debt hasn't been completely collected yet. This is true even though
Alice already made a payment. The landlord can go after each of them until the entire $1,000
is paid off.

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.
This statement outlines the rules for situations where multiple people owe money together
(solidary debtors) and one of them decides to make a payment:

Payment Extinction: If one of the solidary debtors makes a payment, it completely settles the
debt, and the obligation is considered fulfilled.
Choice of Payment: If multiple solidary debtors offer to make a payment, the creditor (the
person owed the money) can choose which offer to accept.

Reimbursement: The person who made the payment can ask their co-debtors (the others
who owed money) to reimburse them, but only for the share of the debt that corresponds to
each co-debtor. They can also request interest on the amount they paid.

No Interest Before Due Date: If the payment is made before the debt's due date, no additional
interest can be demanded for the time between the early payment and the original due date.

Insolvency: If one of the solidary debtors can't reimburse their share due to financial
difficulties, the remaining co-debtors must share the burden and cover that person's portion
in proportion to their own debts.

In simple terms, when multiple people owe money together and one person pays, that
payment settles the debt. If more than one person offers to pay, the creditor can choose who
to accept payment from. The person who paid can ask their co-debtors to repay their
respective shares with interest, but if someone can't pay, the others need to cover that
person's share based on their own debts.
Imagine three friends, Alex, Bob, and Carol, are solidary debtors and jointly owe $1,500 to a
creditor, Sarah. Each of them owes $500.

Payment Extinction: If Alex decides to make a payment of $500 to Sarah, the debt is
considered fully paid off, and they no longer owe anything.

Choice of Payment: If both Bob and Carol offer to make a payment when the debt is due,
Sarah, the creditor, can choose to accept the payment from either Bob or Carol, based on
her preference.

Reimbursement: Let's say Bob made the payment of $500 to Sarah. He can ask Alex and
Carol to reimburse their respective shares of the debt. So, Alex and Carol each owe Bob
$500.

No Interest Before Due Date: If Bob makes the payment before the due date, he can't demand
any extra money from Alex and Carol as interest for the period between the early payment
and the original due date.

Insolvency: If Carol, due to financial difficulties, can't pay her share of $500 to Bob, then Alex
and Bob will need to share Carol's portion. In this case, Alex would have already paid $500,
and Bob would have paid $500. They would both bear Carol's share of $500 equally, so each
of them would need to contribute an additional $250 to cover it.

This example illustrates how the rules apply when multiple people owe money together and
one of them makes a payment.
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.
This statement means that if one of the people who owe money together (a solidary debtor)
makes a payment but does so after the legal time limit for enforcing the debt has passed
(prescription) or if the debt has become illegal for some reason, then that person can't ask
their co-debtors to reimburse them for the payment. In other words, if the payment is made
too late or under illegal circumstances, the other debtors are not obligated to pay the person
back for that payment.

Imagine three friends, Alice, Bob, and Carol, are solidary debtors and jointly owe $1,000 to a
creditor, Sarah, for a loan they took together.

Now, let's consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Payment Made on Time

Alice decides to pay the full $1,000 to Sarah within the legal time limit (before the debt expires
or becomes illegal).
Alice can ask Bob and Carol to reimburse her for their respective shares of the debt, which is
$500 each. So, she can request $500 from Bob and $500 from Carol, and they should pay
her back.
Scenario 2: Payment Made Late or After Becoming Illegal

If Alice waits too long and pays the $1,000 after the legal time limit has passed, or if some
event makes the debt illegal (for example, due to a change in the law), then she cannot ask
Bob and Carol to reimburse her.
In this case, even if Alice paid the full debt, Bob and Carol are not obligated to give her back
any money because the payment was late or illegal.
So, the timing and legality of the payment matter in determining whether a solidary debtor
can ask for reimbursement from their co-debtors.

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.
This statement means that if a creditor forgives or cancels a portion of the debt owed by one
of the people who share a joint responsibility for the debt (solidary debtor), it doesn't mean
that person is no longer responsible for their share of the debt towards the other co-debtors.
This is especially true if the debt was already completely paid by one of the co-debtors before
the forgiveness was granted.

In simpler terms, if one person in a group of debtors pays off the entire debt, and then the
creditor forgives part of the debt for one of the remaining debtors, the debt that was forgiven
doesn't disappear for the other debtors. They still need to pay their share.
Imagine three friends, Alex, Bob, and Carol, share a solidary debt of $1,500 with their creditor,
Sarah. Each of them owes $500.

Now, let's consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Total Payment by One Debtor Before Forgiveness

Alex pays the entire $1,500 debt to Sarah, covering his share and the shares of Bob and
Carol.
Sarah then decides to forgive $200 of Carol's debt, reducing it to $300.
Even though Carol's debt was partially forgiven, Alex already paid off the entire debt before
the forgiveness. So, Carol is still responsible for her remaining $300 debt, and Bob must pay
his $500 share as well.
Scenario 2: Forgiveness Without Full Payment

This time, Alex, Bob, and Carol each still owe $500, making the total debt $1,500.
Sarah decides to forgive $200 of Carol's debt, reducing it to $300, while Alex and Bob haven't
paid anything yet.
In this case, Carol's debt has been reduced, but Alex and Bob are still responsible for their
full $500 shares each. Carol only benefits from the forgiveness, and her debt is now $300,
but she still owes it.

1220- THE REMISSION OF THE WHOLE OBLIGATION, OBTAINED BY ONE OF THE

SOLIDARY DEBTORS, DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM HIS CO-
DEBTORS.
This statement means that if one of the people who share a joint responsibility for a debt
(solidary debtor) manages to get the entire debt forgiven or canceled by the creditor, that
person can't ask their co-debtors to pay them back or reimburse them for their share of the
debt. In other words, if the debt is completely forgiven for one person, they can't then try to
collect money from the others for their part of the debt because it no longer exists.

Imagine three friends, Alice, Bob, and Carol, share a solidary debt of $1,500 with their creditor,
Sarah. Each of them owes $500.

Now, in this scenario:

Alice manages to negotiate with Sarah and convinces her to forgive the entire $1,500 debt.
The debt is completely canceled, and Alice no longer owes any money to Sarah.
Now, even though Alice's debt has been forgiven entirely, she cannot ask Bob and Carol to
reimburse her for their shares of the debt, which would be $500 each. Since the debt no
longer exists, there's nothing for them to reimburse, and Alice can't collect money from Bob
and Carol for a debt that has been completely forgiven.