Short answer. No. Under Article 1220 of the Civil Code, a solidary debtor who obtains a full remission of the entire obligation from the creditor cannot demand reimbursement from the co-debtors. The benefit of the remission belongs to all of them, but the one who arranged it absorbs the whole amount without any right to recover shares from the others.
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 is absolute — no reimbursement
Article 1220 of the Civil Code states the rule plainly: The remission of the whole obligation, obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors. There is no qualification, no exception, and no partial right to recover. The debtor who secured the remission walks away with everyone's debt forgiven, but also walks away without any claim against anyone else. This is one of those provisions that seems counterintuitive — if the debt was joint, why shouldn't he recover shares? — but it is what the statute says.
Why the law is designed this way
In a solidary obligation, each debtor is liable for the entire debt. The creditor is owed one whole obligation, not several fractions. When the creditor forgives that obligation — to whoever approached him — the remission wipes out the debt entirely. The creditor got nothing. Nobody paid. If the debtor who arranged the remission could then sue the others for their shares, he would be collecting money on a debt the creditor voluntarily wiped out. The law prevents that: the remission is a gratuitous act by the creditor, and the co-debtors share in its benefit without owing anyone anything for it.
This applies only to full remission
Article 1220 specifically covers the situation where the whole obligation is remitted. If the creditor only forgave the share of the debtor he dealt with — a partial remission — the rules are different. In that case, the remaining co-debtors are still liable for their respective portions, and the question of reimbursement among themselves depends on different provisions. If you are uncertain whether the remission was total or partial, the wording of whatever document the creditor provided, and how it was communicated, will matter.
If you are one of the co-debtors
If someone already secured a full remission from the creditor and is now demanding you reimburse him for your share, Article 1220 is your answer: he has no right to that claim. The fact that he was the one who negotiated or obtained the remission does not convert him into a creditor against you. The co-debtors are beneficiaries of the remission, not debtors of the one who arranged it. Understanding this distinction clearly is important before agreeing to pay anything or acknowledging any obligation to him.