Short answer. The creditor decides. Payment by any one solidary debtor extinguishes the whole obligation, and when two or more solidary debtors both offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. Whoever ends up paying can then recover from the co-debtors only their proportionate shares, with interest.
What the law says
Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept.
Civil Code, Article 1217 — Payment by a Solidary Debtor; Reimbursement. Read the full provision →
One payment ends the whole debt
In a solidary obligation, each debtor is liable for the entire debt, so the creditor can collect the whole amount from any one of them. Article 1217 begins from that premise: payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. Once any single debtor pays in full, the creditor's claim is satisfied and gone as to everyone. That is why two solidary debtors can both be eager to pay — each knows that paying settles the matter, and each may have reasons to be the one who deals with the creditor directly.
The creditor picks the payer
When both of you step forward, the article resolves the competition simply: if two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. The choice belongs to the creditor, not to the debtors and not to the one who offered first. This makes sense — the obligation is owed to the creditor, and he is entitled to accept payment from whichever debtor he prefers. Neither co-debtor can force the creditor to take his money over the other's, however earnest his offer to pay may be.
Reimbursement among the co-debtors
Being chosen to pay the whole debt does not mean bearing it alone. The debtor who pays may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, together with interest on the payment already made. So after paying the creditor, the payer turns to the others for their proportionate contributions. If the payment was made before the debt fell due, no interest may be demanded for the period before maturity. The internal division of the burden follows each debtor's share, even though the creditor could demand everything from one.
When a co-debtor cannot pay his share
The article also handles insolvency among the group. If one of the solidary debtors cannot reimburse his share because he is insolvent, that share does not simply fall on the debtor who paid; it is borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each. The loss from one debtor's insolvency is spread across the solvent ones rather than dumped on a single payer. This keeps the ultimate allocation fair internally, consistent with the idea that solidarity is about protecting the creditor, not about punishing whoever pays.
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.
- Benigno M. Vigilla, Alfonso M. Bognot, et al. vs. Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. and/or Gregory Alan F. Bautista, G.R. No. 200094, June 10, 2013 — 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 →
- Republic Glass Corporation, et al. vs. Lawrence C. Qua, G.R. No. 144413, July 30, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rafael M. Crisol, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 235764, September 14, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →