ART. 1207.

THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO OR MORE CREDITORS OR OF TWO OR MORE DEBTORS IN ONE AND THE SAME
OBLIGATION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EACH ONE OF THE FORMER HAS A RIGHT TO DEMAND, OR THAT EACH ONE OF THE
LATTER IS BOUND TO RENDER, ENTIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESTATION. THERE IS A SOLIDARY LIABILITY ONLY
WHEN THE OBLIGATION EXPRESSLY SO STATES, OR WHEN THE LAW OR THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION REQUIRES
SOLIDARITY. (1137A)

Ronquillo v. Court of Appeals

132 SCRA 274

Facts:

Ernesto Ronquillo (“Ronquillo”) was one of four defendants in a Civil Case filed by
respondent Antonio So (“So”) for the collection of P118,498.98, the value of the check issued by
the said defendant in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them. The said checks
were dishonored by the drawee bank.

The lower court rendered a decision based on the compromise agreement by the parities.
The agreement reduced the claim to P110,000 and bound the defendants to initially pay P55,000
of the debt before December 24, 1978. The defendants agreed to pay the balance “individually
and jointly” within a period of six months or before June 30, 1980.

So filed a Motion for Execution on the ground that the defendants failed to make the
initial payment of P55,000 as provided in the abovementioned decision. Ronquillo opposed the
motion for execution alleging that his inability to make the payment was due to So’s own act of
making himself inaccessible.

Ronquillo tendered the amount of P13,750 as his share of the P55,000 initial payment.
Another defendant, Pilar Tan (“Tan”) offered to pay the same amount. Because So refused to
accept their payments, demanding the full initial payment. Ronquillo and Tan deposited the
amount with the court. The court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the balance of
the initial amount payable to the two other defendants.

So sought the reconsideration of the Order and prayed for the execution of the decision
in its entirety against all defendants, jointly and severally. So opposed the motion arguing that
the lower court held that the liability of the 4 defendants was not expressly declared to be
solidary, consequently each defendant is obliged to pay only his own pro-rata or 1/4 of the
amount due and payable.

A writ of execution was issued by the court for the payment of P82,500 [P55,000 (balance
from the whole debt) + 27500 (unpaid shares of initial payment from two other defendants or
P13,750 + P13750)] against the properties of the defendants including Ronquillo, “singly or jointly
liable.” The sheriff issued a notice for the sale of certain furniture and appliances found in
Ronquillo’s residence to satisfy the sum of P82,500.
Issue: W/N the liability of the 4 defendants including Ronquillo solidary.

Held: Yes.

The pertinent provisions are Art. 12071 and Art. 1208.2 By the terms of the compromise
agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their
obligation “individually and jointly.”

An agreement to be “individually liable” undoubtedly creates a several obligation. A

several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation.

Clearly then, by the express term of the compromise agreement and the decision based
upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation "individually and jointly".

The term "individually" has the same meaning as "collectively", "separately",

"distinctively", respectively or "severally". An agreement to be "individually liable" undoubtedly
creates a several obligation, 14 and a "several obligation is one by which one individual binds
himself to perform the whole obligation.

In the case of Parot vs. Gemora 16 We therein ruled that "the phrase juntos or
separadamente or in the promissory note is an express statement making each of the persons
who signed it individually liable for the payment of the fun amount of the obligation contained
therein." Likewise in Un Pak Leung vs. Negorra 17 We held that "in the absence of a finding of
facts that the defendants made themselves individually hable for the debt incurred they are each
liable only for one-half of said amount

The obligation in the case at bar being described as "individually and jointly", the same is
therefore enforceable against one of the numerous obligors.

1Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation
does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render,
entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or
when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

2 Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers
the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are
creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court
governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a)