Short answer. No. Article 1220 of the Civil Code says remission of the whole obligation obtained by one solidary debtor does not entitle that debtor to reimbursement from the co-debtors. The debtor who secured the forgiveness absorbs the benefit; the co-debtors are freed too, but they owe that debtor nothing in return.
What the law says
The remission of the whole obligation, obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
Civil Code, Article 1220 — Remission Obtained by One Solidary Debtor. Read the full provision →
The rule Article 1220 states
Article 1220 provides that the remission of the whole obligation, obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors. "Remission" here means the creditor forgiving the debt. Where one solidary debtor is the one who obtains that forgiveness for the entire obligation, the article denies that debtor any right to later collect a share back from the others.
Why the co-debtors are still freed, but owe nothing back
In solidary obligations generally, if one debtor pays the whole debt, that debtor can normally seek reimbursement from the others for their shares. Remission works differently under this article: forgiving the entire debt through one debtor releases everyone from the obligation to the creditor, but because nothing was actually paid out by the debtor who obtained it, there is no payment for the others to reimburse — the debtor absorbs the benefit of the forgiveness alone. Article 1217 sets out the contrasting case in terms: payment by one of the solidary debtors 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. Reimbursement there is measured against an actual outlay. Article 1220 governs the case where there is no outlay to measure, so the right Article 1217 creates never comes into existence.
Why the outcome depends on who obtained the remission
The article's rule turns on the fact that the specific debtor obtained the remission — it was that debtor's own dealing with the creditor that produced the forgiveness. This differs from a remission the creditor grants generally or that benefits all the debtors' shares proportionately in some other way; here, the debtor who negotiated or received the release does not get to turn around and ask the others to compensate that gain. It matters just as much that what was obtained was remission of the whole obligation. A creditor who forgives only one debtor's share leaves the rest of the debt standing, and that is a different situation from the one this article addresses. Article 1220 speaks to the total release — which is why the co-debtors walk away owing nothing to the creditor and nothing to each other.
If this situation applies to you
Whether you are the debtor who obtained the remission, or a co-debtor being asked to pay something back, the specifics of how the remission arose and what it actually covered will matter to how Article 1220 applies. Gather any written release or agreement with the creditor and bring it to a lawyer to confirm how the obligation among the co-debtors now stands. Whether the release covered the whole obligation or only one debtor's share is the single fact that decides the question, so the wording of the document matters far more than what was said around it.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1220 — Remission Obtained by One Solidary Debtor
- Civil Code, Article 1217 — Payment by a Solidary Debtor; Reimbursement