Terms to remember

Novation- is the total or partial extinction of an

obligation through the creation of a new one which
substitute it.

Compensation- is the extinguishment to the
concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who,
in their own right, are debtors and creditors of each
other (OFFSETTING)
ex.
X owes B in amount of 100
B owes X in amount of 20
IF Both debts are due and payable today so
X only owes B in amount of 80


Confusion -takes place when the characters
of creditor and debtor are merged in the
same person.


Remission- gratuitous abandonment by the
creditor . The obligation itself has become a
donation of the creditor to the debtor.
or
The CANCELLATION of debt or penalty

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 exercised any of
these acts, as well as he who collects the
debt, shall be liable to the others for the
share in the obligations corresponding to
them. (1143)
Jessa, debtor and Carlo , John ,Don solidary
creditors In the amount of P30,000. If Carlo
validly condones the debt in the amount of
P18000, he shall be liable for P6,000 each to
John and Don . If Carlo collects P15000 from
Jessa, Carlo must account for the P5000 share
each of John and Don .
Effect of novation, etc, where
obligation is joint
In a joint obligation, novation, compensation,
confusion, remission, prescription, and any other
causes of modification or extinction does not
distinguish or modify the obligation EXCEPT with
respect to the creditor or debtor affected, without
extending its operation to any part of the debt or of
the credit.
EXAMPLE
If the obligation of Jessa in the above example is
joint, the condonation will affect only the share of
Carlo in the amount of P10000. So Jessa is still
indebted to John and Don in the amount of
P20,000.
In the first example, only P12000 of the debt
remains, the obligation of Jessa to pay the
P18, 000 condoned having being extinguished.
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
be subsequently be directed against the others,
so long as the debt has not been fully collected.
(1144)
The above provision is not applicable to a joint
obligation.
Example:
Ave, Rosanne, Henna and Demi solidarity owe Richter the
amount of P3,000. Richter can collect from Ave or Rosanne or Henna
or Demi alone, or from any three of them, or all of them
simultaneously.

(2)
If Demand is made also on Rosanne and Henna, or to
include them as party defendants, as Ricter has the right to proceed
against any one of them.
If Ave pays Richter P1,000, the latter can still go against all of them
for the balance as long as the debt has not been entirely satisfied.

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 form
his co debtors only the share which corresponds to
each, with the interest for the payment already
made. If the payments 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 debtors paying the obligation,
such share shall be borne by all his co-
debtors, in proportion to the debt of each
(1145a)
Effects of payment by
a solidary 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.
a. Between the solidary debtors and creditors.

Example :
Bea, April, and Jessa are jointly and severally liable to Flo and Trixia
in the amount of P3,000 due on January 5.
If both Bea and April offer to pay Flo , on January 5, the latter may choose
which offer to accept. If Bea pays the amount of P3,000 on January 5, the
obligation is extinguished.
He who made the payment may claim form his co debtors only the
share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already
made. IF THE PAYMENTS IS MADE BEFORE THE DEBT IS DUE, NO INTEREST
FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD MAY BE DEMANDED.

b. Among the solidary debtors
Example:
The payment by Bea gives her the right to demand reimbursement
from April and Jessa P1,000 each with interest from the date of payment.
But Bea is not entitled to reimbursement nor to interest for any payment
made before January 5. The obligation of April and Jessa to reimbursed her
with interest will arise only from January 5.
When one of the solidary debtors cannot because of his insolvency,
reimburse his share to the debtors paying the obligation, such share shall
be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each
If Jessa is insolvent, both Bea and April shall bear her
insolvency in proportion to their shares. Hence, Bea can still ask
April to pay an additional sum of P500. Of course, Bea and April
can later on recover from Jessa should be the latters finances
improve.
If, In the same example, Bea paid only P2,400 and April
P600,Bea can recover reimbursement only to the extent that her
payment exceeds her share, so that Jessa is liable her for P1,000
and April , for 400.
c. Among the solidary creditors

Example:
Flo in above example, has the obligation to give to
Trixia his corresponding share in the credit.
ART 1218. Payment by a solidary debtor shall not
entitle him to reimbursement form his co-debtors
if such payment is made after the obligation has
prescribed or become illegal.
Effect on Payment after obligation has prescribed
or become illegal.

When a solidary debtor pays the obligation;
he is entitled, as a rule , to reimbursement from
his co- debtors.

But if the obligation has become illegal, the
obligation is extinguished.
John and Richter are solidarily bound to deliver 10 bundles of
lumber that came from Talamban which are used for furniture
purposes. Later, the law-making body passed law which prohibits the
illegal cutting of tress in Talamban.
If John, nevertheless delivered the 10 bundles of lumber
knowing that the illegal cutting of trees is already prohibited by law, he
cannot get any reimbursement form Richter because the payment was
made after the obligation had become illegal.
ART 1219. The remission made by the creditor of the share
which affects one of the solidary debtors does not release
the latter form his responsibility towards the co-debtors,
in case the debt had been totally paid by anyone of them
before the remission was effected. (1146a)
The purpose of the article is to forestall fraud whereby the debt having
been paid
This article secures equality and justice to the paying debtor in as much
as the payment benefits his co-debtors.
If the payment is made first, the remission or waiver is of no
effect. There is no more obligation to remit.

If remission is made previous to the payment and payment is
made, solution indebiti arises.
Example :

Maria and Carmille are liable in solidium to Jess in the amount of 1,000. Jess
remitted Marias share. Subsequent payment by Carmille of 1,000 to Jess will
not entitle him to reimbursement from Maria since the remission extinguished
the obligation with respect to Marias share. However, Carmille can demand
the return of 500 from Jess under the principle of solutio indebiti.
If payment by Carmille was made before remission, Maria is still liable to
Carmille because the remission is without effect, the obligation having
been extinguished already by the payment.
Paulo , Demi and Jaeboy are liable in solidum to Rosane in the amount of 3,000.
Rosane remitted the share of Paulo. After paying Rosane 2,000, the balance of the
credit, Demi demands reimbursement from Jaeboy who become insolvent after the
remission.

Is Paulo liable to contribute to the share of
Jaeboy?
YES !
Article 1217 , STATES that the share of the insolvent co-debtor shall be
borne by all of his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each

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.
The reason for the above article is that the debtor
WHO obtains remission pays nothing to the creditor.
It really is a DONATION.
Example:

A and B executed jointly and severally a promissory
note for P2,000 in favour of C. C remitted the whole obligation
out of regard for A.
A here is not entitled to reimbursed from B since A did
not pay anything to C. If only P1,300 is remitted, B is still liable
to C for P700. B has no obligations to reimburse A for P300 of
Bs share affected by the remission for the same reason that
no payment was made by A.

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 payment of
damages and interest, without prejudice to their action
against the guilty or negligent debtor.
Rules in case thing has been lost or prestation has
become impossible

If the thing is lost or the prestation becomes
impossible, the liability of the solidary debtors depends
upon whether or not there is fault or delay.

1. Loss is without fault and before dalay

Ex: A, B, and C promised solidarily to deliver to D a
particular truck valued at P15,000.
The obligation shall be extinguished if the truck is lost or destroyed through a
fortuitous event without the fault if A,B and C and before they have incurred in
delay.
Loss is due to fault on the part of a solidary debtor


Ex: If in the preceding example, the truck was lost through the
fault of C, A and B shall be responsible to D for the price of the
trucks as well as damages although A and B were not at fault at
all. A solidary obligation is, in essence a mutual agency. As far as
the creditor is concerned, the fault or delay of one solidary
debtor shall be the fault or delay of all the solidary debtors.
A and B however, can recover from C, the guilty or negligent debtor, the
full amount of such price and damages if A and B have already
contributed to the price of the truck.
If D recovers the price and damages from C, the latter cannot claim
reimbursement from A and B because he alone was at fault.
Loss is without fault but after delay

Ex:

if the truck was lost through a fortuitous event but after
a demand was made upon C, D can still recover damages from A
or B or both of them without prejudice to the right of action of
action against C following the same rule in No. 2. The default by
C makes all of the solidary debtors responsible even for a
fortuitous event.
ART. 1222 A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the
creditor, avail himself of all defences 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 others, he may avail himself
thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the
latter are responsible.
Defences available to a solidary debtor.

(1) Defences derived from the nature of the obligations

Ex: A and B are solidarily liable to C in the amount of P4,000.
The entire debt of A and B was paid by D. In an action by C
against A, the latter can raise the defense of payment by virtue
of which the obligation was extinguished.
(2) Defenses personal at, or which pertain to share of, debtor
sued


Ex:

(a) If the action by C is against B, and B was insane at the
time the obligation was contracted, B can put up the defense of
insanity with respect to the entire obligation. This defense is
personal to B alone. It is complete defense
Other examples are : incapacity , mistake , violence, minority, etc
(b)

Assume now that the portion of the obligation affecting B is
subject to a suspensive condition which has not yet happened

In this case, the non-fulfilment of the condition is a partial
defense as it can be set up by B only with respect to his share. C can
demand from B the portion of the obligation pertaining to A because
B is solidarily liable.
(3) Defenses personal to other solidary debtors.
Ex:

In the 2 preceeding examples, the defense of
insanity or non-fulfilment of the susupensive condition is
not available to A as to release him from his liability for
his share in the obligation.
In the other words, A may be avail himself thereof only as regards that
part of the debt for which B is liable. Hence, having only a partial defense, A is
still liable for P2,000, his share in the obligation.

Thank you for
listening XD