Hello everyone! Welcome to our channel. Today, we will continue our discussion with the different kinds of obligations classified according to plurality of subjects. Now, this is in contrast to our previous discussion kasi yung sa alternative obligation, yun ay yung plurality of objects, diba? In this video, we will be discussing more particularly The joint and solidary obligations.
Actually, medyo madugo. Or siguro sa inyo hindi. Pero in my part, kasi hindi ako masyado into computation.
Here, we will be doing siyempre mga simple computations lang naman. And hopefully, matulungan ko kayong intindihin ang mga provisions. At sana hindi pa mas lalong naguluhan. Sana matulungan ko kayong maintindihan ng ang provisions or ang topic na ito. Okay?
So, simulan na natin. Before we discuss, please like and subscribe and click that bell button para updated ka sa new video uploads namin. Unlike dun sa mga previous discussions natin na binabasa ko muna yung mga provisions bago ko i-discuss.
Dito kasi medyo mahaba. Mahaba yung topic. So, I think, papakita ko pa rin naman yung provisions. Siguro, post nyo na lang tapos basahin nyo rin.
And then, after that, tsaka nyo pakinggan kung paano ko i-explain. Okay? So, Article 1207. Yung Article 1207, obviously, This talks about joint and solidary obligations.
Kung sa previous discussion natin sa alternative and facultative obligations, we deal with plurality of objects, dito naman plurality of subjects, meaning maraming mga debtor or creditor. Para mas maintindihan natin ang lahat ng lecture na to, dapat talaga malinaw sa atin ano ba ang joint and ano ang solidary obligations. Wait, simulan natin pala kay single. Pag single or individual obligation, isa lang ang debtor or obligor and isa lang din si creditor.
This is in contrast kay collective obligation wherein there are two or more debtors and two or more creditors. Okay? Maliwanag?
Now, what is a joint obligation? What is solidary obligation? Pag joint class, each debtor answers only for a... part of the whole liability and each obligee belongs only part of the correlative right. Tandaan nyo dito, ano, to each his own sila, okay?
Naka to each his own. Kung ano lang yung share at kung ano lang yung part or portion na sa kanya, yun lang yung right or yun lang yung obligation niya. Pag solidary naman, or in other term, joint and several, Each of the creditor may demand fulfillment of the whole obligation.
Dito class, naka one for all, all for one sila. Okay? So, example.
Pogi and Ganda are joint debtors of beauty to an amount of 1,000,000 pesos. So, beauty can demand only from Ganda 500,000 pesos and 500,000 pesos din naman kay Pogi. Okay?
Kasi joined. Tapos, pwede rin ganito pag joined. Pogi and ganda are joint debtors of Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang who are joint creditors to an amount of 1,000 pesos.
So, si Luis may demand only 125 pesos from Pogi and 125 pesos from ganda. At pati si Bella, Pupay, at Impiang ay may parehong right to that of Luis. Kasi nga, Joint, meaning to each his own.
So, sa 1,000 pesos, apat silang maghahati-hati. So, they are entitled to 250 pesos each, diba? Yung debtor ay joint rin. So, si Pogi at Ganda, meaning hindi pwedeng isa lang sa kanila yung magbayad ng lahat. Kasi nga, joint, to each his own.
So, each of his creditors have a right to demand from Ganda and Pogi, 125 pesos lang. Malinaw ba? Kasi di ba 1,000 pesos, joint creditors. Hatiin natin ito 4 kasi 4 yung creditors. So, tagtutu 250. pesos sila.
Tapos, sa 250 pesos, halimbawa si Bella, yung right niya, hindi naman niya pwedeng i-demand lang yun kay Pogi lahat. Kasi, joint debtors din silang dalawa ni Ganda. 125 pesos nun, ay kukunin niya kay Pogi. And 125 pesos, ay kukunin niya kay Ganda.
Para makuha niya yung 250 pesos shares niya. So, ganun din yung gagawin ni Pupay, Luis, tsaka Impiang. Diba? Okay? Now, suppose ganito.
Itong same examples, itong dalawang example na rin. Gawin naman nating solidary obligations. Pogi and ganda are solidary debtors of beauty to an amount of 1 million pesos. Diba ang sabi ko?
pag-solidary, one for all, all for one. Kung kaya, dito, si Beauty ay pwedeng mag-demand ng buong 1 million pesos either kay Pogi or kay Ganda. So, if nag-demand siya ngayon kay Pogi ng 1 million pesos at binayaran ni Pogi ng buo, diba, ang swerte ni Ganda. So, ano ngayon ang right ni Pogi?
Siya lang mag-isa yung nagbayad ng 1 million pesos to Beauty. Si Pogi ay pwedeng mag-ask ng reimbursement from Ganda. In an amount of 500,000 pesos. Which is yung share lang naman ni Ganda.
Okay? Hindi niya rin naman pwedeng hingin yung buong 1 million. Malinaw ba? Kasi sa 1 million na yun, 500 yung share niya at 500,000 yung share ni Ganda. Now, next.
Dito naman sa second example. Pogi and Ganda are solidary debtors of Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang. Who are solidary creditors to an amount of...
1,000 pesos. Pag ganito, mas madaling mag-compute. Any creditor, kahit kanino, kay Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang, ay pwedeng mag-demand ng buong obligation sa kahit kaninong debtor din.
Either kay Pogi or kay Ganda. And in return, kung sino man sa mga creditors ang mag-demand ng full payment, halimbawa si Luis, siya ngayon ay may obligation to give Bella, Pupay, and Impiang an amount of 250 pesos each. And sa part naman ng debtor, kung sino man yung nagbayad ng buo, ay may right rin na mag-claim ng reimbursement sa kapwa niya, debtor. So, ayan, sana talaga mas naintindihan nyo, okay? Kasi magpuproceed na tayo dun sa provisions ng Article 1207. Ang sabi, the concurrence of two or more creditors or two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right.
Or that each one of the latter is bound to render entire compliance with the prestations. Di ba? Joint yung dinidescribe niya, joint obligation.
At ang sabi, There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. So ang sabi ni Article 1207, yung rule or general rule, joint obligation. Tapos, exceptions, magkakaroon lang daw ng solidary liability if, number one, when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. So, pag hindi pasok sa exceptions na to, meaning joint obligation, to each his own. Okay?
Hindi yung one for all, all for one. Now, question. Pwede bang joint on the side of the creditors and solidary on the sides of the debtors?
Or vice versa? Kasi yung mga example natin, pareho. Pag joint, joint din yung si joint si debtors, joint din si creditors. Actually, pwede naman. Okay?
Example ito. Pogi ang ganda are joint debtors of Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang who are solidary creditors to an amount of 1,000 pesos. So, how much can Luis collect from Pogi?
Dito, since Luis is a solidary creditor, so presumably, pwede niyang makolekta ang buong amount. But since Pogi is a joint debtor, he is obliged to pay his shares only, yung part niya lang. Hence, Luis can collect 500 pesos from Pogi. Sa ano pagbaliktad naman?
Yung debtor ang solidary at ang creditor ang joint. So ganito, Pogi and Ganda are solidary debtors of Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang who are joint creditors to an amount of 1,000 pesos. So same question, how much can Luis recover from Pogi?
Since Luis is only a joint creditor, he can only recover his shares which is 250 pesos. And since ang debtor ang solidary, Pogi is solidarily liable meaning pwede niyang makuha ang buong niyang share na 250 pesos kay Pogi alone. Hindi na kailangang 125 pa kay Ganda or 125 pa kay Pogi.
Pwede niya nang kunin kay Pogi yung buong 250 pesos na share niya. Natural yung share niya lang kasi nga joint creditors naman sila. Okay? Okay.
What are the words used to indicate joint liability? Pag nakita o nabasa niyo mga words na to, meaning it is joint obligations. Okay?
Yung liability ng obligors or debtors are joint. Pakibasa na lang. Okay?
But usually, the words used are Eto, pro-rata or proportionately or jointly. Yung mga ganun. Okay?
Now, in contrast, ano naman yung mga words used to indicate solidary liability? Actually, it's not necessary that the agreement should employ precisely the word solidary in order that an obligation may be so considered as a solidary obligation. It is sufficient that the obligation declares, for instance, that... Each one of the debtors can be compelled to pay the entire or the whole obligation or can be proceeded against for the full amount of the obligation or that demand may be made against any one of them.
Yung mga ganon. Meaning, solidary obligation siya. So, that's it. Proceed tayo kay Article 1208. Actually, this is karugtong lang ng 1207. Yung concept niya, yun pa rin. Ito pa rin yung presumption that the obligation is joint.
Again, hindi ko na babasahin. Kayo na yung magbasa. Pa-post na lang if gusto nyo. Or kung nabasa nyo na, tuloy-tuloy na tayo.
So, this provision is in support to the previous one. This provision provides for a presumption na pag mayroong two or more debtors or mayroong two or more creditors, Pinipresume niya na the obligation is joint. And so, as a consequence, the debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors.
And the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another. So, yung credits at yung debts, kinikonsider siya as distinct. Distinct shares.
Yung iba't ibang shares ng debt or credits are considered distinct from one another. So, let's discuss na rin kung ano ba yung mga consequences ng joint liability. First, vitiated consent on the part of one debtor do not affect the others.
So, example, Pogi and Gandar, joint debtors of Butiton, amount of 1,000 pesos. So if yung consent ni Pogi was obtained by fraud or through force or intimidation, yung mga ganon, so hindi magiging liable si Pogi kasi nga through fraud yung consent niya. Pero si Ganda will still be liable for 500 pesos dahil nga yung dalawang utang, yung share ni Pogi at ni share ng obligation ni Ganda are distinct from each other. So hindi maapektuhan yung share ni Ganda.
May obligation pa rin siyang magbayad ng 500 pesos. Second, insolvency of one debtor does not make others responsible for his shares. So ganito, Pogi and Ganda are joint debtors of beauty. It's an amount of 1,000 pesos pa rin.
Paano pala if naging insolvent si Pogi? Wala nang kakayahang magbayad yun, diba? Yung insolvent.
So magkano ngayon ang babayaran ni Ganda? Kailangan niya bang bayaran yung share pati ni Pogi? Then, she needs to pay 1,000 pesos.
Tapos, so ano? Papaluwal siya sa utang ni Pogi? Parang ganon.
Since distinct nga yung share nilang dalawa, so Ganda will only pay 500 pesos. Yung share niya lang din yung babayaran niya. Kasi nga, they are joint debtors after all.
Tapos, demand by the creditor on one joint debtors puts him in default. but not the other since the debts are distinct. Yun pa rin.
Yun yung mga ganun concept pa rin. Okay? Ito namang sa last phrase, huwag natin kalimutan.
May sinabi rito, Subject to the rules of court governing the multiplicity of suits. Ang ibig sabihin lang naman ito is that, ganito, Ordinarily, Once creditor, yung isang creditor mag-sue or mag-file lang din siya ng action against one debtor for its share of obligations. But in view of this phrase, dahil dito, to obtain a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceedings, it would be much better to sue all the necessary parties at the same time.
So sa isang action, Isusunod niyo na or mag-file na siya ng case against lahat ng parties. Okay? So okay, yun lang yun.
So this article speaks of a joint indivisible obligation. The obligation is joint because the parties are merely proportionately liable. And And indivisible naman dahil yung object or subject matter is not physically divisible into different parts.
So joint is referring to the tie between the parties. Tapos indivisible, nagre-refer naman siya dun sa object. Example, Pogi and Ganda are jointly liable to give Beauty a car valued at 1 million pesos.
So on the date of delivery, Pogi is willing to deliver but ganda is not. Since the car is indivisible, the debt can only be enforced by proceeding against all the debtors for compliance. Hindi kasi siya makukumplay unless lahat talaga ng debtors ay magkumplay ng kanilang obligation since yung car ay indivisible. In this case, the liability is converted into 1 for damages.
So ano nga ba yung characteristics of joint indivisible obligations? The obligation is joint but since the object is indivisible, the creditor must proceed against all the joint debtors. For compliance is possible only if the joint debtors would act together.
Ito nga yung sinasabi kong makukomply lang siya pag lahat ng debtor ay nag-comply. Now, second. Demand must therefore be made on all the joint debtors. A demand made by one joint creditor is not a demand by the others. If there be joint creditors, delivery must be made to all, not merely to one, unless that one be specifically authorized by the others.
Kasi nga joint, iba't iba yung share nila. So pag nag-deliver ka naman, dapat sa bawat isa talaga, hindi pwedeng sa isa lang. kasi joint creditor sila. Unless the joint creditor is allowed to renounce his proportionate credit. Pwede niyang i-renounced or i-waived.
Yun. Mas magadali atang intindihin. Pwede niyang i-waived yung sa kanya, yung credit sa kanya.
Okay? So, itong provision na to talks about indivisibility. Tapos, tinidistinguished siya kay solidarity. Sabi, Ang indivisibility ng obligasyon ay hindi kaagad nangangahulugan ng solidarity.
At hindi porkit indivisible ang object, solidarity na. Same rule din naman pagbaliktad. Ang solidarity ng obligation does not itself imply indivisibility. Eh yung nga example natin kanina, joint tapos indivisible pa, diba?
Basta yung dalawa are not the same. Indivisibility, refers to the subject matter or the object of the obligation. Tapos pag sinabi mong solidarity, refers to the tie between the parties.
Okay? Yung relasyon ng parties. Example, Pogi and Ganda are jointly liable to deliver to Beauty a particular car. Dito, yung prestation is indivisible. Pero, yung liability ni Pogi and Ganda are joint.
So, since we have a joint, indivisible obligation which is also discussed kanina ng 1209. Now, if, etong another example, if Bogie and Ganda obliged themselves solidarily to give the car to Beauty, we have a solidary indivisible obligation naman. The obligation is indivisible kasi nga to give a car. Yung object yung titignan natin, diba?
Tapos, Yung relationship ng dalawa na detour is solidary. So, solidary indivisible obligation. Now, to put it in another way, we have a solidary obligation. Kasi yung subject matter is indivisible. Now, ang sabi din naman, a solidary obligation does not necessarily mean that the obligation is also indivisible.
So, halimbawa, Pogi ang ganda. Promised in solidom to beauty, 10,000 pesos. So, here we have an example of a solidary obligation, tapos divisible, kasi yung object is to pay 10,000 pesos. So, solidary. divisible obligation.
Now, if ganito, Pogi and Ganda are jointly liable to pay duty 10,000 pesos, here, we have a joint tapos divisible obligation. Since money is divisible, diba nga? So, joint divisible obligation to. Since, nagbidiscuss na rin tayo ng solidarity, let's discuss on ano, the kinds of solidarity. According to the party's bounds, we have passive solidarity or active solidarity.
Passive, pag on the part of the debtors. So when any one of them can be made liable for the fulfillment of the entire obligations. Pag active naman, meaning on the part of the creditors. So anyone naman sa mga creditors can demand fulfillment of the entire obligations. Tapos, mayroon din tayong mixed.
Pag sinabi mong mixed, either. So, meaning, may solidarity in the part of the debtors and in the part of the creditor. So, each one of the debtor is liable to render, and each one of the creditor has a right to demand entire compliance with the obligations. Okay?
Tapos, nakaklassify din siya according to source. It could also be conventional solidarity or legal solidarity. conventional when it is agreed upon by the parties. Tapos legal solidarity naman, from the word itself, legal, it is imposed by law. Yung mga examples dito, eto, ipopost na lang ko na lang dito, okay?
Please familiarize yourself. I will not tackle this one by one kasi nga it will take time. Baka maubos yung oras natin and napakalayo pa natin para tapusin tong... discussion ng joint and solidarity obligations. So, kayo na yung magbasa niyan.
For now, proceed na tayo sa 12.11. Article 12.11. Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. So, solidarity despite different terms and conditions. So, pwede siyang uniform when the parties are bound by the same stipulations or clauses.
So, lahat ng parties pareho lang yung terms and conditions ng kanilang obligation and rights. Pwede rin namang non-uniform or varied. Dito naman, when the parties are not subject to the same stipulations or clauses. Halimbawa, ganito. Example, ha?
Pogi and Ganda are solidarily bound themselves to pay 1 million pesos to Luis, Bella, Pupay, and Impiang, subject to the following terms and conditions. Number 1. Luis'terms is payable on demand. Bella's share will be due on December 25, 2020. Impiang will get only her share if she passes the bar exam. Number 2. Pupay will get her share only if she paints the house of beauty. So yan, di ba?
That is an example na nag-eexist yung solidarity although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. So dito, class, ang example na to. The obligation is still solidarity. Kahit pa nga according kay Article 12.11, Debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. Dito, the creditor may recover that part that is pure and unconditional and should live in suspense or pending the right to demand the payment of the remainder until the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the condition.
So yung share ni Luis will be due pag nag-demand na siya. But, hindi niya pa makukuha ang share nila ni Bella, Impiang at Pupay. Kasi naman, yung shares nila hindi pa due and demandable. Yung share ni Bella ay pwede na niyang ma-recover pagdating noong December 25, 2020. At yung kay Impiang at Pupay, pag nagawa at nangyari na yung kondisyon na hinihingi ng kanilang obligation, nasa stipulation ng contract nila.
Diba? So, I think wala nang mag... Okay na siya. Let's proceed to Article 12, 12 na.
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. So, eto. The provision provides that solidary creditors may do useful, not prejudicial acts.
Okay? Pwede yung useful acts, pero hindi yung prejudicial acts. So, example. Yung pag-demand, pwedeng mag-demand yung isang creditor, si Solidary Creditors, in behalf of his other creditors. Kasi useful naman yun, beneficial yun to his or her other creditors.
Pero hindi niya pwedeng i-condone or alam mo yun, yung i-waive yung rights, yung right niya sa credit, tapos sama niya pa yung ibang. rights ng mga kasama niyang creditor kasi that is prejudicial sa kanyang mga kasamahan. Okay? So, if ganun, pag nag-waive siya ng rights, so the obligation is extinguished, but kung sino man yung nag-waive, siya ay magre-reimburse sa mga kasama niyang hindi nag-waive ng credit. Siyempre, sila ay makakatanggap pa rin ng shares nila.
Okay, so Article 12.13, a solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others. So, eto, this article talks about the solidary creditor's right to assign. Now, general rule, supposedly, si solidary creditor cannot assign.
Yung exception is, when other... creditors consent. So, kung lahat naman ng mga kasama niyang co-creditors or co-solidary creditors niya ay nag-consent, pwede naman.
Kasi nga daw, essentially, solidary obligations implies mutual agency and mutual confidence. Di ba nga? Naka all for one, one for all sila.
So, yun. So, pag nag-assign ka to other person, in-assign mo sa iba ang right mo, that person will then be put in your shoes. So, yun nga. So, mutual agency and mutual confidence pa naman yung relationship within solidary obligations. So, yun.
Kailangan may consent ng mga other creditors. Okay? Example, Pogi is obliged to give 1 million pesos to solidary creditors Bella, Impiang, and Pupay on December 25, 2020. Tapos, if on December 20, bago pa na December 25, si Bella in-assign niya yung kanyang right to beauty, dito class, beauty cannot collect the obligations on the due date because the assignment is invalid. Di ba? Kasi walang consent ng mga creditors, ng mga kapwa-solidary creditors ni Bella.
Pero take note din pala, Bella may assign her right sa kanyang kay Pupay kasi hindi naman si Pupay other person. Si Pupay ay kanyang co-creditor. Pwede naman yun, ina-allow kasi wala namang bago. Diba?
Yung mutual agency and mutual confidence na ina-apply or ini-imply ng solidary obligations ay wala namang pagbabago kung sa kapwa co-creditor mo lang din in-assign yung right mo. Right? So, question. Supposing after the assignment of Bella to Beauty, si Pogi ay binayaran din naman si Beauty.
So, is the obligation extinguished? No. Because the assignment on the first place is invalid.
Okay? It is not valid. So, what will happen to the payment made by Pogi to Beauty?
Dito, Pogi may recover the payment made to Beauty. Under what rule? Of course, don't forget solosyo and debete or unjust enrichment.
Kasi nagbayad siya when after all, beauty has no right to receive. So, yun, unjust enrichment. So, proceed tayo.
Article 12.14. 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. So, etong provision na to answers the questions, who to whom must the debtor pay?
Okay? Kanino ba dapat magbayad? si debtor.
Kasi nga, naka-solidary creditor sila, all for one, one for all. So, sabi, general rule to any of the solidary creditors, kahit kanino sa kanila, pwede. Nga, all for one, one for all naman, diba?
Pero, pag may isang nag-demand in behalf of the others, dapat sa kanya ka magbabayad. Diba? Yun yung exceptions.
When one, judicial or extrajudicial, When a demand judicial or extrajudicial has been made by one of them, payment should be made to him. Dun sa credit or the nag-demand. So Article 1214 is applicable not only in cases of active solidarity but also where the solidarity is mixed although the singular debtor is employed.
In case of mixed solidarity, the debtor upon whom no demand has been made may pay the sum of the amount of the debtor upon whom the demand has been made. pay anyone of the Solidary Creditors pa rin. Okay?
Example, Pogi, Ganda, and Beauty are Solidary Debtors of Pupay and Impian. Solidary Creditors for 30,000 pesos. Pupay makes a demand to Pogi. So, question.
To whom Pogi should pay? The answer, to Pupay because siya yung nag-demand, diba? Isip Suppose ganito, ang binayaran ni Pogi ay si Impiang. Is the obligation extinguished? No, because the law is clear.
Ang bayad ay dapat sa nag-demand ng payment. Pero syempre, yung bayad kay Impiang extinguishes the obligation as to Impiang. But not as to Pupay. Kasi si Pupay ay nag-demand. Dapat sa kanya rin.
Dapat yung bayad ay sa kanya. Yun. Okay? So, article 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion, or remission of the debt.
So, medyo maraming legal terms. And I doubt if alam nyo na to. Pero, if ever alam nyo na, okay, that's good.
Pero para sa hindi pa nakakalam, kasi madidiscuss na rin naman natin to in chapter 4 when we reach the topic about the extinguishment of obligation. But since na-mention na rin naman talaga dito, let me just define na lang. Pero ano lang, yung passing or yung hindi na natin kailangan i-discuss in detail muna. Save natin yun sa next chapter, next video. Okay?
So, sabi, Novation, compensation, confusion, or remission of the debt made by any one of the solidary creditors or any of the solidary debtors. shall extinguish the obligation. So, yan.
Yung apat daw ay makakapag-extinguish ng obligation. Hmm. So, ano nga ba?
First, ano nga ba si novation? Talakayan na natin first. Novation. Article 1291. Sabi, Novation is the modification of an obligation by 1. Changing its object or principal obligation 2. Substituting the person of the debtor or 3. Subrogating A third person in the rights of the creditor. But to better understand, kailangan talaga natin ng example.
Maraming example. So, okay. Pogi and ganda are solidary, liable to Pupay and Impiang.
Solidary creditors pa rin for the payment of 1 million pesos. Okay na yung usapan. Tapos, okay na yun. Settled na. Tapos later, the parties agreed na instead of paying 1 million pesos, Ibibigay na lang ni Pogi ang kanyang sasakyan, yung car niya.
So dito yung obligation to pay 1 million pesos was extinguished. Pero nagkaroon, nag-create ng new obligation which is to deliver the car of Pogi. So nagkaroon ng modification as to the object of the obligation.
Now question, suppose it was only Pogi and Pupay who agreed on the novation. Is Ganda bound to comply with the novation? Answer, no.
Because she did not consent to the novation. So another question. Dito naman sa part ng isang creditor kay Impiang. So ano ngayon yung right ni Impiang?
So ang right ni Impiang is to proceed against upay. Kasi ang sabi ng Article 12.15, He who collects the debt shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them. Okay? Mag-proceed tayo with compensation. Bilisan lang natin to.
Okay, passing. So, next, yung compensation. Ang compensation naman, class, is when two persons, in their own right, are debtor and creditor of each other.
As simple as, when Pogi owes ganda 1,000 pesos, and then ganda owes Pogi 1,000 pesos rin. Ganon. So, pwede kasi sa compensation, total or partial. Pag total, extinguished yung obligation.
Example, baba. Okay, example sa compensation. Pogi ang ganda, solidary debtors of Pupay and Impiang in an amount of 400,000 pesos.
But si Pupay rin ay may utang kay Pogi na 400,000 pesos din. So dito, since solidary naman, ang solidary debtors and creditors naman sila, so, Si Pogi and Pupay are now in their own right debtor and creditor of each other. So automatic extinguish yung obligation by virtue of compensation. Pero syempre, si Ganda, hindi naman basta ganun na lang din yun.
Ganda was benefited kasi yung credit ni Pogi ang naipambayad sa kanilang obligasyon. So si Ganda ngayon ay dapat rin na magbayad ng P200. 200,000 pesos kay Pogi.
And dito naman sa mga creditor, si Impiang, ay may right din. So, her right should not be prejudiced. So, she can recover her share naman na 200,000 kay Pupay.
Right? Ito na rin yung ibig sabihin ng second paragraph ng Article 1215. Anyway, paano naman is partial lang? Like, if yung utang pala ni Pupay kay Pogi ay 400,000 pesos.
Hindi 400,000 pesos but 150,000 lang. So dito, nag-eexist ang partial compensation. Ididak lang natin yung 150,000. So yung remaining of 250,000 ay magsasubsist. Ganun pa rin.
Ganun lang siya. So now, confusion. Confusion or merger.
Dito class, yung character ng debtor at creditor is merged into one and the same person. Okay, kanina sa compensation, yung debtor and creditor ay naging, si Pogi at si Ganda ay naging debtor and creditor of each other. Dito talaga sa confusion, yung character ng debtor at ng creditor ay nag-merge sa iisang tao, one and the same person. So example, if si Pogi and Ganda, solidary debtors ni Beauty for 10,000 pesos. Through a promissory note.
Tapos, si Beauty in-endorse ang promissory note or promissory note niya kay Bella. And si Bella in-endorse naman yung promissory note kay Impiang. And from Impiang to Pupay. And then, from Pupay, na-endorse niya ulit yung promissory note worth 10,000 pesos to Pogi.
So, si Pogi ay naging debtor and creditor at the same time. So, Eto, sa example na ito, na-extinguish na rin yung obligation. Okay? So, how about remission? Remission, other term is condonation or yung waiver.
The act of liberality whereby yung creditor condones the obligations of the debtor. Yung rename ni creditor, yung credit in favor kay debtor. So, wala nang babayaran, extinguish na ang obligation.
Ganun lang siya. I don't think kailangan pa ng example. But, balikan na lang natin yung provision. Sabi diba, 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 provision of Article 1219. So, eto lang.
Without prejudice to the provision of 12 of Article 1219. Anong ibig sabihin ng without prejudice to the provision of Article 1219? Tito Klas, pag daw ang share ng Solidary Creditor was remitted by the creditor after another, Solidary Debtor had paid the whole obligation. The remission is useless.
Magbabayad pa rin si Debtor. Ganon. Kasi bago niya nag-wave lang siya after na ng payment.
So useless na rin. Bakit i-wave pa ba? Ibayad na rin naman. What's there to wave?
Diba? So anyway, we will discuss this later. For now, proceed tayo kay Article 12.16. So Article 12.16, 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.
So, yung right of creditor, ito yung right of creditor to proceed against any solidary debtor. It answered the question, against whom creditor may proceed for payment? Kanino daw ba?
Kanino siya maniningil? Ang sabi ni 1216, against any, some, or all of the solidary debtors. Kahit kanino sa kanila. o kahit sa lahat sa kanila, pwede.
It reiterates the rule that in solidary obligation, sa passive solidarity, anyone or some or all of the solidary credit debtors simultaneously may be made to pay the debt so long as it has not been fully collected. Okay? Example.
Pogi and Ganda, Solidary Debtors of Beauty to an amount of 1,000,000 pesos. So either kay Pogi or kay Ganda ay pwedeng magbayad ng whole amount na 1,000,000 pesos. Pwedeng singilin, okay?
At pwede rin naman na mag-collect lang si Beauty ng big 500,000 pesos each sa dalawa. That's it. That's Article 12.16. Madali lang naman siya. Proceed tayo kay 12.17.
Medyo mahaba, okay. Ay, hindi ko na babasahin. Post nyo na lang, tapos pakibasa, and pag tapos nyo na, okay, play nyo ulit. Ito yung explanation ko dito.
Itong article na ito, it gives rise to the effects of payment by a solidary debtor. So, do we need to define payment? Huwag na.
We will discuss this thoroughly naman in the next chapter. So, dun ma-iintindihan nyo yung payment. Pero as of now, okay na rin naman yung isipin nyo na yung payment, yung bayad. Okay, yan lang muna.
I think the first paragraph of this article is self-explanatory. 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. Diba? Payment extinguishes the obligation.
And if two or more debtors nag-offer ng bayad, si creditor ay may option kung sino sa kanila o kanino sa kanilang offer ang tatanggapin niya. Diba? Example pa rin tayo.
Pogi ang ganda are solidary debtors of beauty to an amount of 1 million pesos. Pogi ang ganda offer to pay. So, si beauty ngayon ay may right to choose as to whose payment ang tatanggapin niya.
Suppose, Pogi... paid the whole amount of 1 million pesos. So, si Pogi ngayon ay pwedeng mag-ask ng reimbursement from Ganda. And plus, interest pa daw. Yan yung sabi ni paragraph, ng second paragraph ng Article 12.17.
Yun. Sabi pa nga, if paid after maturity, interest shall run from the date of payment until reimbursement is made. paid before maturity naman daw, interest shall run from maturity until reimbursement is made.
So, in our example, kay Pogi and Ganda, if Pogi paid on due date, he can ask reimbursement from Ganda without interest. Pero, if si Ganda ay nagbayad lang kay Pogi, nag-reimburse lang siya kay Pogi after one year na from the date nung nagbayad si Pogi, Then she needs to pay an interest from the due date up to the time na nagbayad siya ng reimbursement. Now, suppose before maturity, nagbayad na si Pogi kay Beauty.
Let's say, one month before pa ng maturity ng utang. Halimbawa, nagbayad siya ng November kahit na yung maturity talaga ng utang is December pa sana. So, can Pogi collect from ganda ang interest from November?
No, kasi hindi pa naman due at that time. Sa December pa talaga magsastart yung interest. Okay?
But wait, before I forget, the last, importante rin ito, yung last paragraph ng Article 12, 17. Dito naman, if yung isa sa mga co-debtor ay naging insolvent bago pa siya mag-reimburse. Well, to better understand, mas maganda ata example na lang tayo, okay? So, eto, mag-create na lang tayo ng bagong example.
Halimbawa, Bella, Impiang, and Pupay are the solidary debtors of Beauty for an amount of 1 million pesos. Bella paid Beauty the full or the whole amount of 1 million pesos. Obviously, yung pagbabayad ni Bella ng 1 million pesos kay Beauty gives her the right to demand reimbursement from Pupay and Impiang, each with interest from the date of the payment.
Unless, Si Bella ay hindi naman entitled sa reimbursement nor to, I mean, sa interest for any payment kung nagbayad siya before yung due or yung maturity ng 1,000,000 pesos. So, the obligation of impiyang-ankupay to reimburse Bella with interest will arise only upon the maturity of that obligation. Now, eto ngayon yung last paragraph.
Eto yung sinasabi. However, After nagpagbayad ni Bella, kung si Pupay ay naging insolvent, wala na siyang kakayahang magbayad or mag-reimburse kay Bella. And so, the last paragraph ng Article 12.17 says that, Such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors in proportion to the debt of each. Yun yung sabi ni 12.17. So, meaning, si...
Bella at si Impiang shall bear their insolvency, I mean the insolvency of Kupay in proportion to their shares. Hence, Bella can still ask Impiang to pay an additional sum. So yung hilingin ni Bella, I mean ni Bella kay Impiang is yung reimbursement ng share ni Impiang plus an additional sum which is yung tatumbas naman nung... reimbursement dahil sa insolvency ni Pupay.
So, in proportion yun sa share ni Bella at ni Impiang. Of course, Bella and Impiang can later on recover from Pupay pag nag-improve naman yung finances ni Pupay. Okay? So, that's it.
So, Article 12, 18. 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. So, eto naman, eto yung nagbidiscuss ng effects ng payment when the obligation has already prescribed or has become illegal. So, again, yung rule diba is, when a solidary debtor...
paid obligation. Pag isa sa mga solidary obligation nagbayad, binayaran niya yung obligation as a whole, di ba? He is entitled to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
Siyempre, siya lang mag-isa nagbayad so maghihingi siya ngayon ng reimbursement sa mga kapwa niya debtors. Si Article 1218 mentions two cases, dalawang scenarios kung saan Yung paying debtor, yung nagbayad na debtor cannot get any reimbursement. Okay? Dito, ano yung sitwasyon kung saan hindi mali-reimburse si paying debtor? First, when the obligation has prescribed.
And second, when the obligation becomes illegal. So, eto, example. I mean...
Pag nangyari yung dalawa, it has prescribed or has become illegal tapos nagbayad pa rin siya. Okay? Eto, example. Pogi and Ganda solidarily bound themselves to give Beauty some drugs worth 1 million pesos. Later, a law was passed prohibiting the transactions of said drugs.
And so, declares the drugs to be outside the commerce of man. Knowing this, si Pogi voluntarily delivers. Binigay pa rin niya yung drugs worth 1 million pesos to beauty.
So, question, may Pogi gets reimbursement from Ganda sa share ni Ganda sa obligation? Of course, no. Article 1218 says so. So, payment made. by a solidary debtor shall not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors if such payment is made after the obligation has become illegal.
Okay? Yun yung example dun. So, Article 1219. Malapit na tayo. Last three articles. At FIBA 19, 21, 22, 4 pa pala.
So, the remission. Eto. Karigtong ko ng 1215 kanina. Pero dinaanan na rin naman natin.
So, effect of remission of share after payment. So, naunang nagbayad, ginawa muna ang pagbabayad bago may remission or waiver. So, ang sabi, the waiver is of no effect. Wala nang obligasyon pang iwi-wave kasi. Diba, bayad na nga eh.
So, ano pa yung i-remit? Pero class, if yung remission is made, nauna yung pag-waive bago pa yung payment, so ano na mangyari doon? Papahula ko talaga sa inyo. Anyway, yun is a case of solosyo in bibeti, di ba? Unjust enrichment.
Magbayad ka, then after all, wala na palang right na, hindi ka na pala dapat magbayad. Anyway, this article is designed... to prevent fraud and to give justice to the paying debtor naman. So, example, Pogi and Ganda solidarily bound themselves to pay Beauty 1 million pesos.
So, binayaran na nga ni Pogi ang buong 1 million pesos. Tapos, e pang si Beauty, after nung payment, nag-wave ng share ni Ganda. Sabi, oh Ganda, wag mo nang bayaran.
Okay, isabi ng Article 1219. The remission made with the creditor of the share which affects one of the solidary debtors does not release the latter from his responsibility towards the co-debtors. So, in case the debt had been totally paid by any one of them before the remission was effected. So, dito dahil nga nauna yung payment before yung remission, Pogi can still recover reimbursement from Ganda kasi bayad na. Tapos, i-remit mo ngayon yung utang kay Ganda.
So, ano to? Diba? Unfair kay Pogi pag ganon.
So, wag. Hindi daw pwedeng ganon. Pag ganon daw. Nako naman. Ang sabi ni 1219, si Ganda ay may obligation pa rin to pay or to reimburse Pogi.
Pero yung sabi ko nga kanina, if nauna yung remission ni Beauty, bago nauna yung pag-wave niya ng utang ni Ganda, Tapos, tsaka pa nagbayad si Pogi ng 1 million pesos to Beauty. And, tinanggap naman ni Beauty. Dito, kasi now na yung waiver. So, hindi kailangan mag-reimburse ni Ganda.
Dahil, nung nag-wave si Beauty ng credit or ng utang ni Ganda, nagkaroon na ng extinguishment of obligation. So, hindi na kailangan i-reimburse. However, si Pogi can demand a return.
return of 500,000 pesos from duty under the principle of solosyo in dibeti, unjust enrichment. Okay? So, Article 1220, the remission of the whole obligation obtained by one of the solidary debtors does not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
So, no right to reimbursement in case of remission. Okay? Ang dahilan para sa... Article na to, because ang sabi, yung remission daw, nung nag-remit or nung kinindone ni creditor yung utang ni debtor, wala naman, hindi naman nagbayad si debtor, diba? Remission is, it must be borne in mind, is essentially gratituous.
It is really a donation. So, notepass, it applies only when the whole obligation is remitted. Okay, basta tandaan nyo lang, no right to reimbursement in case of remission. Kasi unfair, may remit tapos maniningil ka sa mga kasama mong co-debtors.
So, yun, nagka-pera ka pa. Okay, so, Article 1221. Medyo mahaba ang provision. Hindi ko siya babasahin.
Yung provision na to talks about the effect of loss or impossibility. So, to simplify this provision, ganito lang talaga yung ibig niyang sabihin. Pag yung loss or yung impossibility is without the fault, no liability.
The obligation is extinguished. Now, second scenario, if my fault si debtor, then... There is liability plus damages and interest. Okay? Tapos yung third scenario, pag yung loss daw is because of a 42s event after default.
Dito naman, there is liability because the default, because nagkaroon na ng default bago pa man yung 42s event. So, example, ganito. Pogi and ganda are solidarily obliged to give beauty this particular car.
The car was lost by a 42s event and without any fault on the part of the debtors. So what happened to the obligation? Article 1221, first paragraph, yung mag-a-apply.
So the obligation is extinguished and there is no liability. Now suppose the car was lost. Through the fault of Pogi.
And beauty makes a demand later upon Ganda. Should Ganda be liable for the price of the car? Si Pogi ang may kasalanan. At fault si Pogi, pero si beauty nag-demand kay Ganda. Liable ba si Ganda?
Second paragraph of Article 1221 naman yung mag-a-apply. Si Ganda will be liable even if she was not at fault. Remember, they are solidarily obliged to give beauty that car.
And note, the law expressly makes her liable, hindi lang sa price ng car but as well as damages and sa interest. However, ganda kan later on recover from Pogi the whole amount of what she paid kasi had Pogi not been at fault, the obligation would have been extinguished. So, ganda can recover the whole amount, ha? Take note of what she had paid. Right?
Now, suppose ganito ang nangyari. Pareho pa rin. Pogi ang ganda are solidarily obliged to give beauty this particular car. Tapos, beauty already makes an extra judicial demand upon Pogi.
But, hindi pa nakapag-believer. Tapos, after nun, after nung demand, the car was lost. through A42's event. So, question, is the obligation extinguished?
So, dito naman, si last paragraph of Article 1221 will apply. So, the obligation is not extinguished because naon na yung demand bago pa nawala yung car through A42's event. And yung same rule nga daw ng second paragraph is also applicable.
Sinabi pa, diba? So, meaning, the non-defaulting debtor, which is ganda, Can later on recover from Pogi the whole amount of what she paid. Kasi nga, had Pogi not been at fault, the obligation would have been extinguished. So, ganda can recover the whole amount of what she paid.
Okay? That's it. It's as simple as that. So, punta na tayo sa last article ng video na to. Article 1222. So, Ito naman yung mga defenses available to a Solidary Debtor.
So, in an actions filed by the creditor, a Solidary Debtor may avail himself of the following defenses. First, defenses derived from the nature of the obligation. So, ito yung defense na from the nature of the obligation is actually a complete defense because it nullifies the obligation.
It renders the obligation. ineffective. Example, yung fraud, yung prescription, remission, illegality or absence of consideration, non-performance of a suspensive condition as a debtor, pwede mo yung gamitin. Now, second naman ng mga defense, yung defenses personal to the debtor.
Yung example dito yung mga wish-hated consent in capacity to give consent, diba? Like yung minor. Tapos yung non-fulfillment pa rin ng condition. This is also personal to the debtor. So, and last is yung defenses personal to other solidary debtors.
So, eto naman yung partial defense. Yung first and second, yun ay mga complete defense. Meaning, pag yun yung defense mo at napatunayan mo, hindi ka talaga magbabayad.
Dito sa partial, partial lang din. Anyway, eto ang example. Pogi and Ganda are solidarily indebted to beauty for 1 million pesos.
But Pogi's consent was of... obtained through force and intimidation. So, if Beauty files an action against Pogi para maningil ng 1 million pesos, how much can she get from Pogi? The answer is nothing.
For us to Pogi, he has a complete defense. Had it not been due to the fact that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation, he would not have been involved after all. Wala naman talaga siyang Pogi. dapat bayarang 1 million pesos.
Diba? So now, if beauty files an action against ganda, so eto kay ganda naman, how much can beauty get? Dito, si ganda can set up the defense that Pogi's consent was obtained through fraud and intimidation or whatever. Tapos, pero, yun is only partial. Partial defense lang.
Kasi eto yung defense personal to the other solidary debtors. So, dahil partial lang naman, ganda kang still be liable up to 500,000 pesos yung sa share niya. Right? That's it. Thank you for watching till the end.
If there's something that confused you, please comment down below. I will try to answer. But, huwag naman yung mga questions na talaga napapa-answer nyo sa akin.
Yung mga questions ng exams nyo. But as to... how to understand the law better, I will try to answer. Okay?
Thank you for watching! Thank you for watching! If you want to see more, please like and subscribe and click that bell button para updated ka sa next video upload namin.
Thanks again!