Short answer. No. Because you had already paid the whole debt before the creditor forgave your co-debtor's share, that forgiveness came too late to affect your right to be reimbursed. Article 1219 says a remission of a share does not release that debtor from his responsibility towards the co-debtors once the debt was totally paid before the remission.
What the law says
does not release the latter from his responsibility towards the co-debtors
Civil Code, Article 1219 — Remission After the Debt Has Already Been Paid. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the debt had been totally paid by anyone of them before the remission was effected
Civil Code, Article 1219 — Remission After the Debt Has Already Been Paid. Read the full provision →
The order of events decides it
Article 1219 turns on sequence. It says the remission made by the creditor of the share which affects one of the solidary debtors does not release the latter from his responsibility towards the co-debtors, in case the debt had been totally paid by anyone of them before the remission was effected. In plain terms: if the whole debt was already paid, and only afterwards did the creditor purport to forgive one debtor's share, that forgiveness cannot strip you of your reimbursement claim. You paid first; the remission came second, and by then there was nothing of that debtor's obligation left for the creditor to give away.
You can only forgive a debt that still exists
The logic is simple once you see it. Remission, the creditor's act of forgiving what is owed, can only operate on a live obligation. When you paid the entire solidary debt, the obligation to the creditor was extinguished for everyone. There was no longer any share the creditor owned and could release. So when the creditor later forgave your co-debtor, the creditor was giving away something it no longer held. The remission is, as to your internal claim, an empty gesture. It may change the debtor's relationship with the creditor on paper, but it takes nothing from your right to be repaid.
Your right to reimbursement stays intact
Once you alone paid a debt that several of you owed together, the law lets you recover from each co-debtor the part that was truly his. Article 1219 protects exactly that recovery. As the text puts it, the remission does not release the latter from his responsibility towards the co-debtors, meaning his duty to you, the one who paid, continues. He must still hand over his share of what you advanced on his behalf. The creditor's later generosity was the creditor's to give from its own pocket, not from yours; it cannot be funded by cancelling what your co-debtor owes you.
Reverse the timing and the answer changes
The rule is narrow and depends on timing. Article 1219 applies only where the debt had been totally paid by anyone of them before the remission was effected. Reverse the order, with a genuine forgiveness that took effect before anyone paid, and the analysis differs, because an earlier valid remission reduces what is collectible in the first place. The article also does not fix how large each co-debtor's share is; it only preserves your right to pursue that share. And it assumes the debt was truly paid in full. If the payment did not extinguish the whole obligation, other rules on solidary obligations decide the outcome.