Short answer. No. Creditors may exercise the rights and bring the actions of their debtor to satisfy their claims, but the law expressly excludes those which are inherent in his person — a personal claim like moral damages generally falls outside what you can pursue in his place.
What the law says
may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for the same purpose, save those which are inherent in his person
Civil Code, Article 1177 — Remedies of Creditors (Subrogatory and Rescissory Actions). Read the full provision →
What a subrogatory action lets a creditor do
The law gives creditors a way to reach assets and claims their debtor is neglecting to pursue: they may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for the same purpose. In effect, you can step into your debtor's position and assert claims that belong to him, so that whatever is recovered can eventually satisfy what he owes you.
The 'inherent in his person' exclusion
That power is not unlimited. The same sentence that grants it carves out an exception: rights inherent in his person are off-limits. A claim for moral damages is the clearest example — it exists because of harm to the debtor's own feelings, reputation, or peace of mind, which is exactly the kind of personal interest the law will not let a creditor assert on his behalf.
There is a precondition before you even get here
Even for rights that are not personal, the remedy is not the first thing a creditor reaches for. The law frames it as available after having pursued the property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims — meaning the ordinary route of going after his property comes first, and the subrogatory action is a further step once that alone does not satisfy what he owes.
A separate tool exists for fraudulent transfers
The same provision also lets creditors impugn the acts which the debtor may have done to defraud them — a distinct remedy aimed at transactions the debtor used to put assets out of your reach, rather than at exercising his personal rights for him. That tool addresses a different problem than the one you are describing, but it is worth knowing it exists alongside the subrogatory action, since the two remedies are often discussed together even though they serve different purposes.
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.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dr. Restituto C. Buenviaje vs. Spouses Jovito R. and Lydia B. Salonga, et al, G.R. No. 216023, October 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Anchor Savings Bank (formerly Anchor Finance and Investment Corporation) vs. Henry H. Furigay, et al, G.R. No. 191178, March 13, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Carmelita Leaño, etc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 129018, November 15, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →