Short answer. Yes, but only up to a point. When one joint debtor refuses to perform an indivisible obligation, all debtors become liable for indemnity — but those who were ready to fulfill are responsible only for their proportionate share of the price or value, not for the full amount.
What the law says
A joint indivisible obligation gives rise to indemnity for damages from the time anyone of the debtors does not comply with his undertaking. The debtors who may have been ready to fulfill their promises shall not contribute to the indemnity beyond the corresponding portion of the price of the thing or of the value of the service in which the obligation consists.
Civil Code, Article 1224 — Breach of a Joint Indivisible Obligation. Read the full provision →
What happens when one debtor refuses to perform
The moment any one of the joint debtors refuses or fails to perform, the obligation converts from one that could be delivered in kind into a monetary claim for damages. The creditor can no longer demand the indivisible thing or act from the willing debtors alone — instead, indemnity for the full value becomes due. This is the practical consequence of indivisibility: you cannot deliver half a piece of land or half a performance, so the law substitutes money when one party breaks the chain.
The cap that protects the willing debtors
Article 1224 draws a clear line between the debtor who caused the breach and those who were ready to perform. The ready debtors do become liable — the creditor is not left without a remedy against them — but their exposure is capped at their corresponding portion of the price or value. If three persons jointly owed an indivisible service worth ₱900,000 and one refused, the two who were willing are each on the hook for ₱300,000 at most, not the full ₱900,000. Only the refusing debtor bears the uncapped obligation to make the creditor whole.
Why the distinction matters if you are one of the willing debtors
If you find yourself in this position — ready to perform but dragged into a claim because your co-debtor refused — the statute protects you from paying more than your proportional share. This matters practically when the obligation is large. Document your readiness to perform before the breach ripens: written notice to the creditor or the refusing co-debtor preserves evidence that you were not the source of the problem. That record becomes relevant if the court must later apportion how much each debtor owes and whether the refusing debtor owes additional damages beyond the basic indemnity.
The right to recover from the refusing debtor
A willing debtor who ends up paying the creditor more than their share — because the creditor pursues whoever has assets — is not without recourse. The general rules on obligations allow a party who pays more than they owe to seek reimbursement from the one who actually caused the breach. That right of action runs against the refusing debtor, not against the other willing co-debtors who also paid their portion. The result is that the refusing debtor ultimately bears the economic weight of the breach even if the creditor collects from others first.