Analysis on combinations of solidary and joint debtors or creditors

There is no confusion if there is only one debtor and only one creditor. In such a case, the single creditor can simply collect the whole amount from the single debtor./For Louise P.For example, AAA is indebted to BBB in the amount of Php100. There is no sense in classifying them as "solidary" or "joint" debtor or creditor because such labels only make sense in case of two or more debtors and/or two or more creditors. Hence, BBB can simply collect Php100 from AAA.

To simplify the rules, one may be tempted to formulate rules based on the following:

2 JOINT DEBTORS V. 1 CREDITOR

1 DEBTOR V. 2 JOINT CREDITORS

2 SOLIDARY DEBTORS V. 1 CREDITOR

1 DEBTOR V. 2 SOLIDARY CREDITORS

However, it is submitted that a simpler approach would be to focus on the obligations of the parties, whether solidary or joint and whether debtor or creditor.

For debtors, solidarity means "I will pay 100%." Hence, if AAA and BBB are solidary indebted to CCC in the amount of Php100, the obligation to pay becomes solidary, i.e., "demandable 100%." CCC can collection Php100 from either AAA or BBB.

Notice that we are focusing on the solidary nature of the obligation to pay.

For creditors, solidarity means "Whatever I collect, I will distribute to my co-creditors in proportion to what they are entitled to." Hence, if AAA and BBB are indebted to CCC and DDD who are solidary creditors in the amount of Php100, AAA would not be obliged to pay 100% because s/he is not a solidary debtor; the obligation to pay 100% does not exist.

CCC can only collect Php50 from either AAA or BBB and, after that, CCC has the obligation to give to DDD Php25, i.e., what DDD is entitled to as a solidary creditor. The solidary nature of a credit does not refer to the "obligation to pay"; rather, it refers to the obligation of a co-creditor to remit to the other solidary debtors the amount in proportion to what they are entitled to.

If WWW and YYY are indebted to XXX and ZZZ who are solidary creditors in the amount of Php100, we should arrive at the following analysis:

1. WWW and YYY are not solidary debtors because an obligation is presumed to be joint unless it is stipulated, unless the law provides or unless the nature of the thing requires solidarity;
2. Being a joint debtor, WWW or YYY cannot be demanded to pay 100%. WWW, for example, is only obliged to pay Php50;
3. Since XXX and ZZZ are solidary creditors, whatever they collect from WWW or YYY must be remitted to the other creditor in proportion to what s/he is entitled to; and
4. If WWW collects Php50 from XXX, WWW should give Php25 to YYY.

Suppose GGG and HHH are jointly and severally (which means solidarily) liable to pay Php100 to III and JJJ. We should arrive at the following analysis:

1. GGG and HHH are solidary debtors. Hence, any of them is obliged to pay 100%;
2. If GGG pays Php100 to either III or JJJ, GGG has the right to be reimbursed by HHH; and
3. III can demand Php100 from either GGG or HHH. After receipt of Php100, III has the obligation to give HHH Php50.

Most books on obligations law focus on solidary debtors because it is this aspect that is most crucial in solidary obligations.

Continuing with examples, let us take the example of SSS and TTT who are indebted to UUU and VVV in the amount of Php100. Analysis:

1. SSS and TTT are joint debtors;
2. UUU and VVV are joint creditors;
3. SSS is only obliged to pay Php50;
4. If SSS pays UUU Php50, the obligation to pay insofar as SSS is concerned is extinguished;
5. VVV would then have to collect from VVV; and
6. SSS, after receiving Php50 from SSS, is not obliged to give VVV Php25 because they are not solidary creditors. The obligation to remit to other creditors an amount in proportion to what they are entitled to does not exist between and among joint creditors.

Finally, consider JJJ and KKK, solidary debtors, and LLL and MMM, solidary creditors, over the amount of Php100. Analysis:

1. Either JJJ or KKK can be made to pay Php100;
2. If LLL collects Php100 from JJJ, LLL should give Php50 to JJJ because they are solidary debtors; and
3. The law puts emphasis on the obligation of JJJ and KKK to pay; either of them has the obligation to pay.

At the bottom, the solidary nature of credit matters only among creditors. On the other hand, the solidary nature of debt has a huge effect on demand and payment, thus:

1. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or all simultaneously (Art. 1216, Civil Code)
2. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. (Art. 1217, Civil Code)
3. The solidary debtor who made the payment shall have the right to claim from his co-debtors the share which corresponds to them with interest, UNLESS barred by prescription or illegality. (Art. 1218, Civil Code)

In fact, there are only four (4) provisions under the Civil Code that mention solidary creditors, viz:

1. Article 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;
2. Article 1213. A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others;
3. 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; and
4. Article 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 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.