Short answer. No. You cannot shield yourself with a defense that belongs only to the borrower. Article 2081 lets a guarantor set up defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt; but not those that are personal to the debtor — and minority is a personal one.
What the law says
The guarantor may set up against the creditor all the defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt; but not those that are personal to the debtor.
Civil Code, Article 2081 — Guarantor's Defenses. Read the full provision →
Two kinds of defenses, only one of them yours to use
Article 2081 sorts the borrower's possible defenses into two groups and lets you borrow only one of them. You may set up against the creditor all the defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent in the debt. Those are defenses that go to the debt itself — that it was paid, that it was extinguished, that it never validly arose. What you cannot use are those that are personal to the debtor. A personal defense protects the particular person of the debtor, not the debt, and the law reserves it to him alone. The line is between attacking the obligation and invoking something peculiar to the borrower.
Why minority is personal, not inherent
Minority is the classic example of a defense personal to the debtor. It exists to protect the minor because of his own status, not because there is anything wrong with the debt as such. So even though the borrower himself might avoid the obligation by invoking his minority, that protection is his to raise, tied to his person. Article 2081 deliberately withholds it from the guarantor. You stepped in to answer for the obligation, and you cannot then escape by borrowing a shield the law gave to the borrower personally rather than to the debt you guaranteed.
What you can still raise
This does not leave you defenseless. Anything inherent in the debt remains open to you against the creditor. If the debt has been paid, has been remitted, has prescribed as an obligation, or otherwise no longer exists or was never truly owed, those are defenses pertaining to the debtor and inherent in the debt, and you may assert them. The distinction Article 2081 draws is not between good and bad arguments but between arguments about the obligation itself, which you may use, and arguments about the debtor's own person, which you may not.
The practical takeaway
So if the only reason you have to resist the creditor is the borrower's minority, that will not excuse you as guarantor, because it is a defense personal to him. Before refusing to pay, the question to ask is whether your objection challenges the debt itself or merely rests on something peculiar to the borrower. The former can be raised; the latter cannot. Understanding which side of that line your defense falls on is what determines whether Article 2081 lets you stand on it against the creditor.
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.
- Spouses Alfredo and Susana Ong vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 160466, January 17, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Paulino M. Ejercito, et al. vs. Oriental Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 192099, July 8, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Autocorp Group, et al. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corp, et al, G.R. No. 166662, June 27, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →