Short answer. Usually, yes. Civil Code Article 2073 lets a guarantor who pays the debt demand from each co-guarantor the share proportionally owed. But that right applies only if the payment was made because of a judicial demand, or because the principal debtor turned out to be insolvent — not any payment you choose to make on your own.
What the law says
When there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the share which is proportionally owing from him.
Civil Code, Article 2073 — Contribution Among Co-Guarantors. Read the full provision →
The right to contribution, in principle
Article 2073 addresses exactly this situation: “when there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand of each of the others the share which is proportionally owing from him.” You are not left to absorb the whole obligation alone simply because you were the one who paid; your co-guarantors owe you back their proportionate part of what you covered on their behalf.
Two elements in that opening line do real work. The guarantors must be guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt; people who happen to have guaranteed different loans of the same borrower are not co-guarantors of each other and owe no contribution. And what is recoverable is a proportional share, which follows the amounts each one guaranteed rather than an automatic equal split, so the guaranty documents are what fix the arithmetic.
The condition that limits it
This right does not apply to every payment. The article closes with a restriction: it applies “unless the payment has been made by virtue of a judicial demand or unless the principal debtor is insolvent.” If you simply chose to pay the creditor voluntarily, with no judicial demand behind it and the principal debtor still solvent, Article 2073 does not give you the right to seek reimbursement from your co-guarantors on this basis.
What happens if a co-guarantor cannot pay
The article also addresses the risk that one of the guarantors cannot cover their share: “if any of the guarantors should be insolvent, his share shall be borne by the others, including the payer, in the same proportion.” So the loss from an insolvent co-guarantor is not absorbed solely by whoever happened to pay the creditor — it is spread proportionally among all the guarantors, the paying one included, rather than falling entirely on one person.
What to check before you demand reimbursement
Before pursuing your co-guarantors, confirm which of the two triggering conditions applies to your payment — a judicial demand that compelled you to pay, or the principal debtor's insolvency. If neither applies, this particular right of contribution is not available on the facts as they stand, whatever informal understanding the guarantors may have had among themselves about sharing the risk.
Keep this right separate from the other one you may have. Contribution under Article 2073 runs sideways, against your co-guarantors, and is capped at their shares. Your claim against the principal debtor is a different remedy and runs for the whole of what you paid — the debtor, after all, owed the debt. Pursuing your co-guarantors is usually the second-best route, taken because the debtor cannot pay.
Who this right runs against
The article is limited by its own terms to guarantors “of the same debtor and for the same debt.” It does not create contribution rights among people who separately guaranteed different obligations of the same debtor, or who guaranteed the same kind of debt for different debtors. If your co-guarantors did not guarantee that identical debt alongside you, Article 2073 gives you nothing against them, no matter how similar their undertaking looked.