211. I. The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly.
They must be
positively and clearly expressed.
II. A liability is solidary “only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when
the nature of the obligation so requires.”
a. Only I is true
b. Only II is true
c. Both are true
d. Both are false
C. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of
the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the
debtors. On the other hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtor is liable only for a
proportionate part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a proportionate part of the
credit from each debtor. The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly.
They must be positively and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary “only when the obligation expressly
so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires (PH Credit
Corporation vs. CA & Carlos M. Farrales, G.R. No. 109648, November 22, 2001).”
212. A, B, C, and D are joint creditors of X and Y, solidary debtors, in the amount that solidary
obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be positively and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary
“only when the obligation expressly, states when the law so provides or when the nature of the
obligation
of P40,000. How much can A, B, and C collect from X?
a. A, B and C could collect P20,000 from X.
b. A, B and C could collect P30,000 from X.
c. A, B and C could collect all the P40,000 from X.
d. A, B and C could collect P20,000 from X and P10,000 from Y.
B. The creditors are joint parties while the debtors are solidarily liable, Hence, each one of the debtors
can pay the entire obligation; however, each of the creditors can only demand their respective
obligation. Observe that the problem is asking for the share of three (3) creditors.
213. I. In case of breach of a joint indivisible obligation, it is converted into an indemnity for damages.
II. The obligation is deemed to be divisible when it is to give definite things and those which are not
susceptible of partial performance.
a. Only I is true
b. Only II is true
c. Both are true
d. Both are false
A. The obligation is deemed to be indivisible when it is to give definite things and those which are not
susceptible of partial performance (Art. 1225, NCC).
For example, A and B promised to deliver a specific car to X and Y. Take note that their agreement is
silent as to whether it is joint or solidary; hence, it is presumed to be joint. It is worthy to note also that
the object is a car meaning it is an indivisible thing that is why all the creditors should collectively make a
demand and that the debtor should collectively perform their respective obligations. Otherwise, there is
no complete payment or performance.
Assuming that both X and Y made a demand on maturity date against A and B and that A is willing to
deliver the particular car but B is not willing to deliver. By way of analysis, A owes 50% of the obligation
and the other 50% is owed by B. Hence, even if A is willing to deliver the specific car, the 50% of the car
cannot be determined because it is indivisible. Consequently, the obligation of A and B will be converted
into an indemnity for damages. If the car has a market value of P1,000,000 then A will pay P500,000
with no additional damages because he is willing to deliver. However, B will be paying P500,000 plus
damages because he is not willing to deliver that may result to delay, a ground for asking damages.
Assuming that both A and B are willing to deliver; however, B turned insolvent, what would be the legal
effect? The answer is that A will just have to wait for B to become solvent and thereafter to collect his
share in the obligation.
In case of breach of a joint indivisible obligation, Art. 1224, NCC, provides:
Art. 1224. A joint indivisible obligation gives rise to indemnity for damages from the time anyone of the
debtors does not comply with his undertaking. The debtors who may have been ready to fulfill their
promises shall not contribute to the indemnity beyond the corresponding portion of the price of the
thing or of the value of the service in which the obligation consists.
Hence, in case of breach of a joint indivisible obligation, it is converted into an indemnity for damages.
The joint debtors who failed or refused to comply with his obligation shall bear the burden of paying all
of the damages to the creditor or joint creditors.
For those joint debtors who may have been ready to comply with their obligation shall not contribute to
the indemnity beyond the corresponding portion of the price of the thing or the value of the service in
which the obligation consists.
214. I. Indivisibility refers to the juridical tie or legal tie or vinculum juris that is not capable of partial
performance.
II. Solidarity refers to the prestation.
a. Only I is true
b. Only II is true
c. Both are true
d. Both are false
D. In case, there is a concurrence of two or more creditors or more debtors in one and the same
obligation, Article 1207 of the Civil Code states that among them, “there is a solidary liability only when
the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.”
Article 1210 supplies further caution against the broad interpretation of solidarity by providing: “The
indivisibility of an obligation does not necessarily give rise to solidarity. Nor does solidarity of itself imply
indivisibility.”
These Civil Code provisions establish that in case of concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or
more debtors in one and the same obligation, and in the absence of express and indubitable terms
characterizing the obligation as solidary, the presumption is that the obligation is only joint. It thus
becomes incumbent upon the party alleging that the obligation is indeed solidary in character to prove
such fact with a preponderance of evidence (Salvador P. Escaño and Mario M. Silos vs. Rafael Ortigas, Jr.,
G.R. No. 151953, June 29, 2007).
215. I. Indivisibility exists even if there is only one debtor and one creditor.
II. Solidarity exists only if there are two or more debtors or two or more creditors.
a. Only I is true
b. Only II is true
c. Both are true
d. Both are false
C. INDIVISIBILITY vs. SOLIDARITY
Indivisibility Solidarity
Indivisibility refers to the prestation that is not capable of partial performance. Solidarity refers to the
juridical tie or legal tie or vinculum juris.
Indivisibility exists even if there is only one debtor and one creditor. Solidarity exists only if there are
two or more debtors or two or more creditors.
In indivisibility, each debtor is not bound to fulfill the obligation more than his share and each creditor
cannot demand fulfillment of the obligation more than his share. In solidarity, each debtor is
bound to the fulfillment or compliance of the entire obligation and each creditor may demand the
fulfillment or compliance of the entire obligation.
In case of breach of the obligation, the indivisible obligation is converted into indemnity for damages;
thus, the indivisible character of the obligation is terminated. In case of breach of the obligation, the
solidary character of the obligation remains.
In indivisibility, only the debtors guilty of breach of the obligation is liable for damages. In solitary, all
the debtors are liable for damages even if only one of them is guilty of breach of the obligation.
In indivisibility, if one debtor is insolvent, the other debtors are not liable for his share. In solidarity, if
one debtor is insolvent, all the other debtors who are solvent are proportionately liable for the share of
the former.
216. I. In case of breach of the obligation, the indivisible obligation is converted into indemnity for
damages; thus, the indivisible character of the obligation is terminated.
II. In case of breach of the obligation, the solidary character of the obligation becomes joint.
a. Only I is true
b. Only II is true
c. Both are true
d. Both are false
217. It may be defined as a tie or vinculum among several creditors of one and the same obligation.
a. Passive solidarity
b. Active solidarity
c. Mixed solidarity
d. None of the above
B. For example, X owes A, B, and C the amount of P300,000. Their agreement is that the creditors are
solidary. In this case, either of A, B, may collect the entire credit of P300,000 subject to the giving of the
share of the other co-solidary creditors. For instance, if B demanded from I the debt and the latter paid
P300,000, X is obligated to give the share of A and C in the amount of P100,000 each.
218. It may be defined as a tie or vinculum among several debtors of one and the same obligation.
a. Passive solidarity
b. Active solidarity
c. Mixed solidarity
d. None of the above
A. For example, X and Y, solidary debtors, are obligated to B in the amount of P100,000. Since this is
passive solidarity, if B demanded from Y, Y will pay the entire amount of P100,000 and thereafter he has
a right to ask for reimbursement of P50,000 from X, the latter’s share.
219. This is solidarity among the debtors and creditors.
a. Passive solidarity
b. Active solidarity
c. Mixed solidarity
d. None of the above
C. X and Y are indebted to B and C the amount of P500,000. They stipulated that the nature of the
obligation will be solidary on the part of both debtors and creditors. Thus, either of X or Y may pay the
entire obligation subject to reimbursement of the other’s share. On the other hand, either of B or C may
demand the P500,000 subject to the giving of the share of the other party.
