Short answer. Only your share, unless the document says otherwise. Article 1207 provides that solidary liability exists only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires it. Nothing about co-signing is automatic — though lenders almost always insert the wording.

What the law says

There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

Civil Code, Article 1207 — Joint and Solidary Liability Defined. Read the full provision →

Two regimes, and the paper chooses between them

Article 1207 begins by denying exactly the assumption most co-signers arrive with: the concurrence of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each of them is bound to render entire compliance with the prestation. It then states the exception narrowly — There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Solidarity is therefore something that has to be put there. If the instrument is silent and neither the law nor the nature of the obligation supplies it, each co-debtor owes his own portion and the creditor cannot demand the whole from whichever of you is easier to find.

What the wording looks like

The words that create solidarity are plain, and in commercial lending they are usually present. Jointly and severally, solidarily liable, a clause describing each signatory as a principal and not a mere guarantor, or a co-maker undertaking to answer for the entire obligation all do the job. Banks and financing companies draft for this deliberately, so a co-signed bank loan is far more often solidary than not. What does not create solidarity is the bare fact that two people signed the same page, that the proceeds funded a shared venture, or that the lender's demand letter calls you a co-borrower. The undertaking has to appear in the instrument itself.

If the clause is there, the consequence is severe

Article 1216 allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors, or some of them, or all of them simultaneously, and a demand made against one is no obstacle to demands later directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected. He need not sue your partner first, divide his claim, or explain why he picked you. Article 1217 then supplies the balance: payment by one solidary debtor extinguishes the obligation, and the one who paid may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made.

Who collects is not who ultimately pays

Solidarity governs who the creditor may collect from, not who bears the loss at the end. Your recourse against your partner survives, but it is a separate claim you must pursue yourself, and it is worth only as much as he can actually pay. Article 1222 is the other provision to check before conceding anything: a solidary debtor may raise all defences derived from the nature of the obligation, together with those personal to him or pertaining to his own share. Before answering a demand, obtain the signed loan document and locate the precise clause the lender relies on, because that one sentence decides the whole question.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.