Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Joint and Solidary 2

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    A, B, and C borrowed money from X and failed to repay the debt on time. X sued A for the full amount. A argued two defenses: 1) B was a minor when the contract was signed, which was known to X, and 2) X granted a two-year extension to C to repay. A can use these defenses because they are personal to the other debtors. If successful, A would only owe his individual share plus B's share, but X must wait two years to collect C's share due to the extension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Joint and Solidary 2

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    22 views1 page
    A, B, and C borrowed money from X and failed to repay the debt on time. X sued A for the full amount. A argued two defenses: 1) B was a minor when the contract was signed, which was known to X, and 2) X granted a two-year extension to C to repay. A can use these defenses because they are personal to the other debtors. If successful, A would only owe his individual share plus B's share, but X must wait two years to collect C's share due to the extension.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A, B, and C borrowed money from X and failed to repay the debt on time. X sued A for the full amount. A argued two defenses: 1) B was a minor when the contract was signed, which was known to X, and 2) X granted a two-year extension to C to repay. A can use these defenses because they are personal to the other debtors. If successful, A would only owe his individual share plus B's share, but X must wait two years to collect C's share due to the extension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views1 page

    Joint and Solidary 2

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    A, B, and C borrowed money from X and failed to repay the debt on time. X sued A for the full amount. A argued two defenses: 1) B was a minor when the contract was signed, which was known to X, and 2) X granted a two-year extension to C to repay. A can use these defenses because they are personal to the other debtors. If successful, A would only owe his individual share plus B's share, but X must wait two years to collect C's share due to the extension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Problem — A, B and C borrowed P12,000 from X on June 1, 1966.

    They executed a promissory note


    binding themselves jointly and severally to pay the obligation on June 1, 1968. For failure to pay, X
    brought an action against A for payment of the entire obligation plus interests. A interposed the
    following defenses:
    (1) that B was only a minor at the time of the celebration of the contract and that such fact was known
    to X; and
    (2) that X had granted an extension of two years to C within which to pay.
    (1) Can A avail himself of these defenses?
    (2) Granting that A can avail himself of these defenses, what would be the effect upon his liability,
    assuming that he can establish both defenses by competent evidence? Reasons.
    Answer — (a) A can avail himself of these defenses. Under Art. 1222 of the Civil Code, there are three
    kinds of defenses which are available to a solidary debtor if the creditor proceeds against him alone for
    payment of the entire obligation. They are: fi rst, defenses derived from the nature of the obligation;
    second, defenses personal to him or pertaining to his share; and third, defenses personal to the others,
    but only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible. It is evident that both
    defenses interposed by A fall within the purview of the third.
    (b) Since A can avail himself of both defenses, and since such defenses are not absolute but merely
    partial in character, undoubtedly, X can collect from A the following: (a) P4,000 corresponding to the
    share of A in the obligation; and (b) an amount equivalent to the extent that B had been benefitted by
    his share in the obligation, applying the rule enunciated in Art. 1399 regarding the effect if the defect of
    a contract consists in the incapacity of one of the contracting parties. As far as the share corresponding
    to C is concerned, X must wait for the expiration of the two years extension which he had given to C
    before he can collect such share from A.
    These are: first, when the obligation expressly stipulates the contrary, second, when the different
    prestations constituting the objects of the obligation are subject to different terms and conditions; and
    third, when the obligation is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated.

    You might also like