Short answer. It depends how they hold the credit. If they are solidary creditors, no — Article 1213 states that a solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others. If the credit is merely joint, each share is a distinct debt its holder may assign alone.
What the law says
A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others.
Civil Code, Article 1213 — Assignment by a Solidary Creditor. Read the full provision →
Why solidary creditors need each other's consent
Article 1213 is one sentence long: A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others. The reason is that solidarity among creditors rests on mutual confidence. Any one of them may collect the entire debt and is then accountable to the rest for their shares, so the identity of the person holding that power is a matter for all of them. Article 1212 says the same thing from the other side: each solidary creditor may do whatever is useful to the others, but nothing prejudicial to them. Handing a stranger the right to collect the whole is prejudicial almost by definition, so it requires their agreement rather than their notification.
First establish that they are solidary at all
Whether the rule touches your creditors depends on how the credit was created. Under Article 1208 a debt owed to several creditors is presumed divided into as many shares as there are creditors, each credit distinct from the others, unless the law, the nature of the obligation or its wording shows the contrary. If your lenders are joint creditors in that sense, each of them owns a separate receivable and may sell, assign or pledge it without asking anyone. Article 1213 bites only where the instrument or the law actually made them solidary — that is, where any one of them could have demanded the entire sum from you.
What it means for you as the debtor
Your practical question is narrower: who may you safely pay. Article 1214 provides that the debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors, but that if a demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment should be made to him. An assignment made without the consent Article 1213 requires does not put the assignee into that position, and payment to a person not entitled to receive it is not a discharge — you can be asked for the money a second time. Where two people each claim the right to collect the same debt, paying the more insistent one is precisely the mistake to avoid.
The two documents that decide it
Gather the instrument that created the debt and the deed of assignment being waved at you. The first shows whether the creditors are solidary or joint: look for wording making them solidary creditors, or treating the receivable as a single claim collectible in full by any of them. The second shows what was assigned, by whom, and with whose written consent. If the assignment is genuinely contested and no one can tell you who is entitled, consignation exists for that situation — a debtor willing and able to pay should not be penalised for being unable to identify the right payee.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1213 — Assignment by a Solidary Creditor
- Civil Code, Article 1212 — Useful and Prejudicial Acts of a Solidary Creditor
- Civil Code, Article 1208 — Presumption of Joint Obligation
- Civil Code, Article 1214 — Payment to a Solidary Creditor