FACTS:

A Construction and Service Agreement was entered into by Nicencio Tan Quiombing and Dante Biscocho as the first party, and Francisco and Manuelita Saligo as the second party. The agreement obligated Quiombing and Biscocho to construct a house for the Saligo spouses for a certain price. A second written agreement was executed by Quiombing and Manuelita Saligo, wherein the latter acknowledged the completion of the house and agreed to pay the balance of the contract price. Manuelita Saligo also signed a promissory note for the amount still due, payable to Quiombing. Quiombing filed a complaint for recovery of the amount, plus charges and interests, against the Saligo spouses, who instead moved to dismiss the complaint due to the alleged non-joinder of Biscocho as an indispensable party. The trial court initially denied the motion but later reconsidered and granted it, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUES:

1. Can one of the solidary creditors sue alone for the recovery of amounts due to both of them without joining the other creditor as a co-plaintiff?

2. Is the second solidary creditor an indispensable party?

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that one solidary creditor can sue alone for the recovery of amounts due to both creditors without joining the other creditor as a co-plaintiff. The second solidary creditor is not an indispensable party. The court emphasized that in a solidary obligation, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. Therefore, the private respondents were liable to either of the solidary creditors, and full satisfaction of the judgment obtained against them by one creditor would discharge their obligation to the other creditor. Inclusion of the other creditor as a co-plaintiff would be a useless formality. The Court also cited Article 1212 of the Civil Code, which provides that each solidary creditor may do whatever may be useful to the others. Thus, suing for the recovery of the contract price is a useful act that can be done by one solidary creditor alone. The Court further ruled that if the said creditor collects the amount due, the other solidary creditor may later claim his share, but it will affect only the creditor and not the debtor. In this case, the inclusion of Biscocho as a co-plaintiff was not necessary since Quiombing, as a solidary creditor, was competent to sue by himself alone.

PRINCIPLES:

• In a solidary obligation, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation.

• Each solidary creditor may do whatever may be useful to the others, but not anything that may be prejudicial to them.

• One solidary creditor can sue alone for the recovery of amounts due to both creditors without joining the other creditor as a co-plaintiff. The second solidary creditor is not an indispensable party.