Transcription
Okay, good day, my dear, dear, dear children. Very inspired with the comments, but please be honest and send questions related to the topics I have already lectured on in this video. Because you are enjoying and learning so much, I will try to continue and maybe even finish the course through these videos.
Let us now discuss the last three remaining types of obligations defined and governed by Chapter 3: joint, solidary, and joint and solidary obligations; divisible and indivisible obligations; and obligations with a penal clause. Let us start now with joint and solidary. There are two here: joint obligations and solidarity obligations.
This cluster is based on the number of parties involved in the obligation. Why? Usually, there would only be one debtor or one creditor—no problem; you do not have to deal with the provisions on this topic. But once there are at least three or more parties to an obligation—meaning you have the concurrence of two or more debtors, or two or more creditors, or both—then there is a need to determine whether the obligation is joint or solidary. Joint, joint, or solidary. This classification’s distinction is based on the number of parties in the obligation. Okay, so initially, if there are three or more parties, what is the presumption in law? How will we consider the obligation?
Now, it is obvious from your readings that the presumption is in favor of joint. Joint, don't do that. It is against the existence of the solidary obligation. The reason, which we will find out later, is that a solidary obligation is more—more, sorry—more burdensome to the debtor than joint. That is why the law does not presume its existence. It merely allows the presumption of joint. So, when do we, therefore, presume or conclude the existence of a solidary obligation when there are three or more parties to the obligation? There are only three instances according to the law. We presume the existence of a solidary obligation: one, when it is expressly stipulated by the parties. We will go through certain terms and phrases usually used in commercial transactions where it would want to establish the existence of solidarity—either the creditor, debtors, or both. That’s one. Two, when the law expressly provides for the solidarity of the obligation of parties. We will also enumerate some of them provided for in the Civil Code. And three, when the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Most of them are also those already expressly mentioned by a particular law where a solidary obligation should exist.
Now, before we go further, I want you to understand and memorize the definition of a joint obligation, a solidary obligation, and some of the terms in Latin. It’s preferred to join solidarity. [Music] But it is important because it is common in the bar that the examiner asks you certain Latin phrases or words. I’ll ask you what its definition is. So if you get to encounter… okay. So I leave it up to you now. All right. Okay. However, from the definition provided by your textbooks, you can memorize it if you want, just in case it is asked. You can have that beautiful definition by Manresa or Castan or Ronaldo, or… But what is now the concept and what would make it different from each other?
In a joint obligation, you will see that it actually is a conglomeration of obligations—obligations that are what you call separate, distinct, and independent of each other. If you try to imagine, you do have several creditors or several debtors, and they would want to enter into a loan. Instead of executing separate contracts among themselves, they might as well put it together in one agreement: a joint obligation. Now, because it is separate, distinct, and independent of each other—each to his own—it is still each to his own. One creditor can only demand from the debtors his proportionate share. Each of these debtors may be only liable or compelled to pay his proportionate share of the obligation. So you can imagine it now. I think you do, because my hope is that you read the text before listening to me. So that would be the concept of a joint obligation, which means that because they are separate, distinct, and independent of each other, you will have to conclude that there would be as many obligations as there are debtors and creditors.
All right, let us give you some illustrations, say A and B owe C. The necessity for us to consider it as joint—why the presumption of joint rather than solidary? Okay, so here you will note that there would be what you could call separate, distinct obligations. One obligation is the proportionate share that A owes to C, and the other is the obligation of B to C. So you have, therefore, two obligations, separate and distinct. What is the implication? Simple: A can be held liable only by C for his share in the obligation because C cannot demand from A the payment of B’s proportionate share. Kailangan din ito, which is the total amount consisting of the shares of A and B. Do you understand? I think that is very clear.