G.R. Nos. 48165 and 48166; June 19, 1942
JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. REV. FR. D. R. SALINAS y DR. JOSE MA. DELGADO, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants, Rev. Fr. D. R. Salinas and Dr. Jose Ma. Delgado, were the lessees of the fourth floor of the building known as “Ysmael” located at 101 Echague Street, Manila. The Court of First Instance of Manila, in the two consolidated cases, condemned them to pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff-appellee Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., the total sum of P8,894.92 with legal interest from the dates the two complaints were filed, plus P200 for attorney’s fees and costs.

ISSUE

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the obligation of the defendants-appellants to pay rent is merely joint (mancomunada) as they contend, or solidary (solidaria) as declared by the lower court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the obligation is joint, not solidary. It is an elementary principle of law that the joint character of an obligation is presumed unless there is an express stipulation of solidarity (Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code). While the pact need not use the precise word “solidary,” it must indicate, for example, that each debtor may be compelled to pay the entirety of the debt, or that each obligates himself for the total amount.
The Court found nothing in the lease contract, directly or indirectly, indicating that the obligation to pay rent was constituted as solidary. The contract merely stated that the plaintiff leased the fourth floor to the defendants, with a stipulated rent of P800 per month, plus P100 for the remaining ten days of the first month.
The lower court’s declaration of solidarity was based on its finding that the two lessees rented the fourth floor “entirely…and not by halves between them.” The Supreme Court held that this confuses the indivisibility of an obligation with its solidarity. Not every indivisible obligation is solidary. For instance, the obligation of two or more persons to return a house—an obligation physically impossible to divide and thus indivisible—can simultaneously be joint, as recognized in Article 1139 of the Civil Code. In such a case, fulfillment cannot be demanded from only one obligor; action must be taken against all of them. Furthermore, if such an obligation is breached and transforms into an obligation to indemnify for damages, the indemnity shall be divided among the obligors who caused the breach, pursuant to Article 1150.
In the present case, however, the issue concerns not the appellants’ obligation to return the leased property (which could be indivisible), but their obligation to pay the rent. In the absence of a contrary stipulation, this pecuniary obligation is understood to be divided into as many equal shares as there are obligors, according to Article 1138 of the Civil Code.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Accordingly, the judgment against the appellants is revoked. A new judgment is rendered condemning them to pay jointly (mancomunadamente) to the plaintiff the sums of P1,434.86 with legal interest from February 26, 1938, and P6,960.06 with legal interest from October 26, 1938, until fully paid, plus the sum of P200 for attorney’s fees, and the costs of both instances.