Short answer. Only in part. Under Article 1277, when the roles of creditor and debtor meet in one person in a joint obligation, confusion extinguishes only that person's own share, not the whole debt. The other joint debtors remain liable for their respective shares, because a joint obligation is really divided into as many independent debts as there are debtors.
What the law says
Confusion does not extinguish a joint obligation except as regards the share corresponding to the creditor or debtor in whom the two characters concur.
Civil Code, Article 1277 — Confusion in Joint Obligations. Read the full provision →
What confusion is
Confusion, also called merger, is a way an obligation can be extinguished when the characters of creditor and debtor come together in the same person. If you owe a debt and then, for instance by inheritance or assignment, you become the very creditor of that debt, there is no longer anyone for you to pay or to collect from. The obligation collapses on itself. In an ordinary single-debtor obligation this wipes the debt out entirely, because the sole debtor and the creditor are now one and the same.
Joint obligations are divided by share
A joint obligation works differently because it is not really one debt but several. When several debtors are bound jointly, the law treats the obligation as split into as many independent debts as there are debtors, each owing only his own proportionate share. One joint debtor's dealings do not automatically affect the others, precisely because each share stands on its own. This divided character is what shapes how confusion operates when it strikes only one of the joint debtors.
Confusion wipes out only one share
Applying that to merger, Article 1277 states that confusion does not extinguish a joint obligation except as regards the share corresponding to the creditor or debtor in whom the two characters concur. So if you end up as the creditor of just one of several joint debtors, only that debtor's share is extinguished by the merger. The remaining joint debtors still owe their own shares, and you may collect those in full. Their portions of the obligation are untouched by a confusion that reached only one debtor.
The practical result
The takeaway is that becoming the creditor of one joint debtor is not a windfall that clears the entire obligation, nor a loss that clears the others. It simply removes that one debtor's slice from the picture. You keep your right to pursue the rest of the joint debtors for what each of them owes. This mirrors the general logic of joint obligations, where a change affecting one debtor is contained to his share and does not spill over onto the others.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- PNB Management and Development Corp. (PNB MADECOR) vs. R&R Metal Casting and Fabricating, Inc, G.R. No. 132245, January 2, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →