Short answer. Yes — if your agreement obligated the borrower to get you released as guarantor within a specific period and that period has lapsed, Article 2071 of the Civil Code lets you proceed against him even though you have not paid the creditor anything, because the law does not require a guarantor to pay first before acting to protect himself.
What the law says
When the debtor has bound himself to relieve him from the guaranty within a specified period, and this period has expired
Civil Code, Article 2071 — Guarantor's Action Before Paying. Read the full provision →
Why the passed deadline matters
Article 2071 lists several situations letting a guarantor move against the principal debtor before paying the creditor at all, and one of them is exactly this: when the debtor has bound himself to relieve the guarantor from the guaranty within a specified period, and that period has expired. Once you and the borrower agreed to a release deadline and that deadline has passed without the promised release happening, the broken promise itself is enough — you do not need to wait until the creditor comes after you or until you are forced to pay before you can act.
What proceeding against the debtor actually means
The action available to the guarantor in these cases is not a demand for reimbursement of money already paid — since none has been paid yet — but a demand for release from the guaranty, or for security that will protect the guarantor from the creditor's proceedings and from the risk that the debtor becomes insolvent before the debt is settled. The remedy is preventive: it lets the guarantor get out from under the exposure, or get collateral against it, rather than compensation after the fact.
Other grounds that work the same way
The expired-release-period ground sits alongside several others that also let a guarantor act before paying: being sued for payment, the principal debtor's insolvency, the debt becoming demandable because its payment period has expired, ten years passing on an obligation with no fixed maturity, reasonable grounds to fear the debtor intends to abscond, and the debtor being in imminent danger of insolvency. Any one of these is independently sufficient — you do not need to show more than one applies to invoke the guarantor's right to act early.
What this does not resolve
Article 2071 addresses only when the guarantor may act, not how the specific facts of your agreement will be assessed — whether the promised release period was clearly specified, and whether it has genuinely lapsed, are questions of proof in your particular case. The provision also does not by itself cancel your obligation as guarantor; it gives you a route to seek release or protection while that obligation is still technically in place.
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.
- Autocorp Group, et al. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corp, et al, G.R. No. 166662, June 27, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Special Steel Products, Inc. vs. Lutgardo Villareal, et al, G.R. No. 143304, July 8, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Teodoro G. Bernardino, G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →