Text of the provision
Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.
(1144a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The creditor may proceed against any one, some, or all of the solidary debtors, and suing one does not bar later suits against the others until the debt is fully collected. This is the heart of solidarity's value to a creditor.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1215 — Novation, Compensation, Confusion, Remission by a Solidary Party.
- Article 1217 — Payment by a Solidary Debtor; Reimbursement.
Cases citing this article
- Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Lolita G. Toledo, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Calvin Luther R. Genotiva and Violet S. Genotiva vs. Equitable-PCI Bank (now Banco, G.R. No. 213796, June 28, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- 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 →
- Estanislao and Africa Sinamban vs China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 193890, March 11, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.