Short answer. Yes. Article 1211 says solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. So your co-debtor's share falling due later and on a condition does not destroy the solidarity - you remain solidarily liable, even though your obligations are timed differently.
What the law says
Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions.
Civil Code, Article 1211 — Varied Terms Among Solidary Parties. Read the full provision →
Different terms do not defeat solidarity
It is a common misconception that solidary debtors must all owe on identical terms. Article 1211 rejects that: Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. So one debtor may owe immediately while another's share is subject to a period — a future due date — or a condition, an uncertain future event. The obligation is still solidary. Varying the timing or the strings attached to each debtor's undertaking does not convert a solidary debt into a joint one; the several bonds simply take effect on their own terms while sharing one solidary character.
What this means for you and the creditor
For the creditor, this preserves the core advantage of solidarity: he may still demand the whole debt, subject to the terms actually agreed. Against a debtor whose obligation is already pure and due, the creditor may collect in full now. He cannot yet exact the part burdened by a period or condition that has not arrived, because that portion is not yet demandable — but the solidary tie is intact, and once the period lapses or the condition is fulfilled, that share too can be enforced against any of you. Different clocks, one solidary obligation.
How the internal shares work
Because the debtors are bound solidarily, whoever pays the creditor can look to the others for their respective shares. The differing periods and conditions matter here too: a co-debtor whose share is not yet due, or whose obligation still hinges on an unfulfilled condition, cannot fairly be made to contribute before his own term has come. So the varied terms affect when each debtor can be called on internally, without breaking the solidarity that lets the creditor treat any of you as answerable for the whole once each portion is properly demandable.
What the article does not do
Article 1211 confirms that mixed terms are compatible with solidarity; it does not create solidarity where none was agreed. Solidarity still has to be established — by the wording of the obligation, by law, or by the nature of the undertaking — and this provision only removes one supposed obstacle to it. Nor does it let the creditor ignore a genuine period or condition and demand a share before it is due. And it does not change each debtor's own terms: your co-debtor's later due date and condition remain real, even as the obligation as a whole stays solidary.
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.
- Lafarge Cement Philippines Inc., et al. vs. Continental Cement Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →