Short answer. Not unless solidarity was expressly stipulated. Article 2065 divides the obligation among all the guarantors of one debtor for the same debt, and says the creditor cannot claim from them except the shares they are respectively bound to pay. That protection is called the benefit of division.
What the law says
Should there be several guarantors of only one debtor and for the same debt, the obligation to answer for the same is divided among all. The creditor cannot claim from the guarantors except the shares which they are respectively bound to pay, unless solidarity has been expressly stipulated.
Civil Code, Article 2065 — Benefit of Division. Read the full provision →
The default is shares, not the whole
Article 2065 provides that Should there be several guarantors of only one debtor and for the same debt, the obligation to answer for the same is divided among all. The creditor cannot claim from the guarantors except the shares which they are respectively bound to pay, unless solidarity has been expressly stipulated. Three people who guaranteed one loan are therefore not three sources of the whole amount. Each answers for his share, and the creditor who wants more from one of them must point to an express stipulation of solidarity, not to an inference from the fact that they all signed the same page.
Look for the word, not the arrangement
Because solidarity has to be expressly stipulated, the first thing to read is the signature block and the operative clause of the guaranty. Language binding the signatories jointly and severally, or as solidary guarantors, or making each liable for the whole, is what the exception requires. Note too that Article 2047 provides that where a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the rules on solidary obligations apply to him, which is a different and heavier undertaking than guaranty. A signer who agreed to that has given up more than the benefit of division.
The benefit can be lost the same ways excussion is
The article's last sentence provides that the benefit of division against the co-guarantors ceases in the same cases and for the same reasons as the benefit of excussion against the principal debtor. Article 2059 lists those cases: express renunciation, having bound oneself solidarily with the debtor, insolvency of the debtor, and the debtor having absconded or being beyond suit in the Philippines without a manager or representative, among others. So a guarantor cannot assume division survives whatever happens; the same events that expose him to being sued ahead of the debtor also expose him beyond his share.
If you paid more than your share
Article 2073 supplies the way back. Where there are two or more guarantors of the same debtor and for the same debt, the one who paid may demand of each of the others the share proportionally owing from him, and if any of them is insolvent his share is borne by the others, including the one who paid. So overpayment is not simply lost, but recovering it is a second lawsuit against people who may be no easier to collect from than the debtor was. Assert the benefit of division when the demand arrives, rather than paying and reclaiming afterwards.
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.
- Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation vs. Cardline, Inc., Mary C. Calubad, Sony N. Calubad, and the Heirs of Ng Beng Sheng, Puring C. Ng, et al, G.R. No. 201417, January 13, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2065 — Benefit of Division
- Civil Code, Article 2047 — Guaranty and Suretyship
- Civil Code, Article 2059 — When Excussion Does Not Apply
- Civil Code, Article 2073 — Contribution Among Co-Guarantors