Short answer. Yes, as a default rule. When there are multiple co-debtors and the obligation is not expressly declared solidary, Article 1208 of the Civil Code presumes the debt is joint — divided among the debtors in equal shares, with each liable only for his proportionate part and not for the others' shares.
What the law says
the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another
Civil Code, Article 1208 — Presumption of Joint Obligation. Read the full provision →
The presumption of joint liability
Article 1208 of the Civil Code establishes that when no contrary indication appears from law, the nature of the obligation, or its wording, a debt shared by multiple debtors is presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are debtors, the debts being considered distinct from one another. This is the default: joint liability, not solidary liability. In a joint obligation, each debtor owes only his proportionate share. With three co-signers on an equal footing, each owes one-third.
Joint liability contrasted with solidarity
Solidarity means the creditor can demand the full debt from any single debtor, leaving that debtor to recover from the others. Joint liability means the creditor must go after each debtor separately for that debtor's share — one debtor's failure to pay does not automatically become another's problem. The distinction is enormously practical: under solidarity, a creditor can ignore the other co-debtors and sue one alone for everything; under joint liability, each is only on the hook for his fraction.
When solidarity may still apply
Article 1208 applies when the contrary does not appear from the law, the nature of the obligation, or its wording. Solidarity can still arise even without the magic word if the nature of the obligation itself demands it, or if a provision of law specifically imposes it. Certain commercial transactions and some provisions of the Civil Code create solidarity by operation of law. The starting point is to look carefully at the document and at any applicable law before concluding that the obligation is merely joint.
What this means for a co-signer being sued for the full amount
If a lender is demanding full payment from one co-signer when the obligation is joint, not solidary, that demand exceeds what the law permits. A co-signer in a joint obligation can raise the defense that he owes only his proportionate share and that the remaining shares must be collected from the other co-debtors. The subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits language in Article 1208 means courts have tools to manage these multi-party situations, but the substantive rule — each debtor owes only his share — protects co-signers from bearing more than their burden.
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.
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, etc. vs. BA Finance Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co, Inc, G.R. No. 179952, December 4, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Carlos B. Lozada, Ricardo L. Medalla, Jr., Llewelyn A. Villamor, Rowena DL San Gabriel, G.R. No. 230383, July 13, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edwin Alacon Atienza vs. TKC Heavy Industries Corporation and Leon Tio, G.R. No. 217782, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Amado O. Ibañez and Esther R. Ibañez vs. James Harper as Representative of the Heirs of Francisco Muños, Sr. the Register of Deeds of Manila and the Sheriff of Manila, G.R. No. 194272, February 15, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →