Short answer. Yes. Article 1211 of the Civil Code says solidarity can exist even though the debtors, or creditors, are not bound in the same manner or by the same periods and conditions. Different payment terms or conditions among co-debtors do not by themselves defeat solidary liability.
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 →
Solidarity does not require identical terms
It is a common misconception that solidary co-debtors must all owe under exactly the same conditions to be solidarily bound. Article 1211 corrects that directly: solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the same periods and conditions. What makes an obligation solidary is that each debtor can be held for the entire debt, not that every debtor's personal terms with the creditor are identical to one another.
What can differ between solidary co-debtors
Because of this article, one co-debtor might have a longer period to pay, or be bound subject to a condition the others are not, while another owes unconditionally and immediately, and the obligation can still be solidary as among all of them. These variations affect when a particular debtor's own share becomes demandable from that debtor individually, but they do not change the basic solidary character of the obligation, which lets the creditor pursue the full amount from any solidary debtor whose own obligation is already due.
Why this distinction matters
For a creditor, this means differing terms among co-debtors are not a reason to assume the obligation has quietly become several rather than solidary; the creditor can still look to whichever debtor's obligation is currently due and demandable for the whole amount. For co-debtors, it means agreeing to different periods or conditions for convenience, for instance giving one debtor more time to pay, does not by itself release the others from solidary liability or dilute what each of them can ultimately be made to answer for.
What still needs to be shown
None of this means solidarity is assumed just because several people appear on the same document. Whether the obligation is solidary at all depends on the source of the obligation, whether it is expressly agreed, imposed by law, or arises from the nature of the debt, and that question is separate from Article 1211's point about varying terms. Once solidarity is established on that basis, Article 1211 simply confirms that differences in payment period or condition among the co-debtors do not undo it, rather than being what creates solidary liability in the first place.
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 →