ART. 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. (1137A)

properties of the defendants including Ronquillo, singly or jointly liable. The sheriff issued a notice for the sale of certain furniture and appliances found in Ronquillos residence to satisfy the sum of P82,500. Issue: W/N the liability of the 4 defendants including Ronquillo solidary. Held: Yes. The pertinent provisions are Art. 12071 and Art. 1208.2 By the terms of the compromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation individually and jointly. An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a several obligation. A several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation.

RONQUILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS 132 SCRA 274

Facts: INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY IS SOLIDARY CASE Ernesto Ronquillo (Ronquillo) was one of four defendants in a Civil Case filed by respondent Antonio So (So) for the collection of P118,498.98 , the value of the check issued by the said defendant in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them. The said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. The lower court rendered a decision based on the compromise agreement by the parities. The agreement reduced the claim to P110,000 and bound the defendants to initially pay P55,000 of the debt before December 24, 1978. The defendants agreed to pay the balance individually and jointly within a period of six months or before June 30, 1980. So filed a Motion for Execution on the ground that the defendants failed to make the initial payment of P55,000 as provided in the abovementioned decision. Ronquillo opposed the motion for execution alleging that his inability to make the payment was due to Sos own act of making himself inaccessible. Ronquillo tendered the amount of P13,750 as his share of the P55,000 initial payment. Another defendant, Pilar Tan (Tan) offered to pay the same amount. Because So refused to accept their payments, demanding the full initial payment. Ronquillo and Tan deposited the amount with the court. The court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the balance of the initial amount payable to the two other defendants. So sought the reconsideration of the Order and prayed for the execution of the decision in its entirety against all defendants, jointly and severally. So opposed the motion arguing that the lower court held that the liability of the 4 defendants was not expressly declared to be solidary, consequently each defendant is obliged to pay only his own pro-rata or 1/4 of the amount due and payable. A writ of execution was issued by the court for the payment of P82,500 [P55,000 (balance from the whole debt) + 27500 (unpaid shares of initial payment from two other defendants or P13,750 + P13750)] against the

Art. 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.
1

Art. 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. (1138a)
2

Mark Jorel O. Calida | 1C 2007 | ObliCon