Short answer. Yes, those defeat the whole claim. Article 1222 lets a solidary debtor raise all defenses derived from the nature of the obligation - such as that the debt is void or has been paid. Because those go to the obligation itself, not just your share, proving one defeats the creditor's entire claim, not merely your portion of it.
What the law says
A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share.
Civil Code, Article 1222 — Defenses of a Solidary Debtor. Read the full provision →
What the law says
With respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.
Civil Code, Article 1222 — Defenses of a Solidary Debtor. Read the full provision →
Defenses from the nature of the obligation defeat everything
Article 1222 sorts a solidary debtor's defenses into categories. The first is the powerful one: a solidary debtor may avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation. These attack the debt itself rather than any one debtor. If the obligation is void, or has already been extinguished by payment, then there is nothing for the creditor to collect from anyone — so raising such a defense can defeat the whole claim, not just your part. Payment of the debt and its nullity are classic examples, and both, if proven, sink the creditor's case against all the solidary debtors.
Defenses personal to you, or your own share
The article also lets you use defenses which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. A personal defense is one that belongs to you individually — for instance, something that affects only your own consent or your own portion of the burden. These do not necessarily wipe out the creditor's whole claim, but they can free you, or reduce what can be exacted from you, according to your share. So even where the debt itself is perfectly valid and unpaid, you are not defenseless; the grounds that are personal to you remain available in the creditor's action against you.
Other debtors' personal defenses - only up to their share
There is a limit on borrowing someone else's shield. As to defenses that personally belong to the others, the article says a debtor may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible. So if a co-debtor has a purely personal defense, you cannot use it to escape the entire obligation — you may invoke it only to cut down the portion attributable to that co-debtor. This keeps personal defenses with the person they belong to, while still preventing the creditor from collecting a share that a co-debtor's own defense has effectively neutralised.
What this means for your case
Your question is about defenses that the debt was paid or is void — and those are exactly the ones the article treats as derived from the nature of the obligation. Prove either, and the claim fails against you completely, because you are attacking the debt at its root rather than pleading a mere personal excuse. What the article does not give you is a way to defeat the whole claim using a defense that belongs only to a co-debtor; that reaches only his share. Nor does raising these defenses relieve you if the debt turns out to be valid and unpaid.
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.
- Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 142381, October 15, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Gloria Paje, Lolita Gomez, Miriam Catacutan, Estrella Zapata, Gloria Sumang, Juanita Julieta Dingal, Myra Amante, and Fe S. Bernardo vs. Spic N' Span Service Corporation, G.R. No. 240810, February 28, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- JAPRL Development Corp., et al. vs. Security Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 190107, June 6, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lafarge Cement Philippines Inc., et al. vs. Continental Cement Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →