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
RONQUILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS
compromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants
132 SCRA 274 obligated themselves to pay their obligation individually and jointly.

Facts: INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY IS SOLIDARY CASE An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a several
obligation. A several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself
Ernesto Ronquillo (Ronquillo) was one of four defendants in a Civil Case to perform the whole obligation.
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
1Art. 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.
2 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)

Mark Jorel O. Calida | 1C 2007 | ObliCon 1