Un Pak Leung vs. Nigorra

In the absence of an express stipulation, the obligation of multiple debtors is presumed to be joint, meaning each debtor is liable only for their proportionate share of the debt.

The action was a simple collection of a sum of money. The legal significance arose from the nature of the liability of the two defendants—whether they were each responsible for the entire debt (solidary) or only for a part of it (joint).

• Filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Manila.
• Judgment for the plaintiff.
• Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila.
• CFI tried the case de novo and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, holding both defendants solidarily liable.
• Defendant Juan Nigorra appealed to the SC.

• Plaintiff Un Pak Leung sued Juan Nigorra and another defendant to recover P443.35.
• The lower courts found the defendants indebted to the plaintiff for the claimed amount.
• The CFI's decision did not contain any finding that the defendants had expressly agreed to be individually (solidarily) liable for the full debt.

• (Appellant Juan Nigorra) The assignments of error, except one, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence proving the debt.
• Implicitly argued that he should not be held liable for the entire obligation.

• (Appellee Un Pak Leung) The lower courts correctly found the defendants indebted and liable for the full amount.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the defendants were solidarily liable for the entire debt of P443.35.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC ruled that the defendants were not solidarily liable. The lower court's judgment was modified. The appellant Juan Nigorra was held liable for only one-half of the debt, plus proportionate costs and interest.

• Presumption of Joint Liability under Article 1137 of the Civil Code — The SC applied the rule that when two or more debtors concur in a single obligation, the law presumes the obligation is joint, not solidary. Solidary liability exists only when the obligation expressly states it is constituted as a joint obligation or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires it. Here, the absence of an express agreement for solidary liability meant each debtor was responsible only for his virile or proportionate share.

• "In the absence of a finding of facts therefore that the defendants made themselves individually liable for the debt incurred, they are each liable for one-half of said obligation."

• N/A (The decision does not cite prior jurisprudence, relying directly on the codal provision.)

• Article 1137 of the Civil Code — Provides that the concurrence of multiple debtors does not imply each is bound to comply in full with the obligation. This only occurs when the obligation is expressly constituted as a joint obligation.

• N/A (All justices concurred.)