随着我国金融创新不断提速，有关混合共同担保的案例也层出不穷，在民间借贷等实务中，对于同一债权设置多项担保的情况十分常见. 我国《物权法》第176条对于混合共同担保做出了规定，但该规定仍存在一些争议. 根据该条款的规定，首先，《物权法》以当事人意思自治原则为首位，当债务人不能清偿其债务时，债权人应当按照约定，对其债权进行清偿. 其次，在当事人约定不明或者没有进行约定时，按照如下规则. 一是债务人自己提供物保时，债权人应当先就该物保清偿债权，当物保并不足以清偿债权时，由保证人承担补充清偿责任；二是当第三人提供物保时，则适用物上保证人与保证人平等主义，人保具有与物保一样的清偿顺序，赋予债权人选择. 但这里的问题在于，《物权法》只规制了担保人在负担了担保责任后，可以向债务人行使追偿权，却没有规定第三人负担了担保责任后，是否可以对其他担保人行使追偿权的问题. 笔者对此问题提出如下看法. 第一、根据《物权法》第176条，已经明确物上保证人与保证人平等主义的立场. 因此，若当事人没有进行具体的约定，则物上保证人和保证人之间的担保责任为连带责任，承担了担保责任的担保人就可以向其他担保人行使追偿权，但追偿范围应在其应当承担的份额内. 第二、关于混合共同担保人追偿权行使范围，笔者主张采用比例分配原则，即依照各自担保份额的比例计算各担保人之间所应承担的责任. 第三、关于混合担保人追偿权行使的顺位，笔者认为不应当进行强制，应允许承担担保责任的担保人向主债务人追偿或向其他未承担担保责任人的追偿.
With the continuous acceleration of financial innovation in China, the cases of mixed jointly guaranteed emerge one after another. In the practice of private lending, it is very common to set multiple guarantees on the same claim. The article 176 of China Property Law has provided for mixed jointly guaranteed, however, there are still some controversies about this regulation. According to the provisions of this article, first of all, the property law puts the principle of party autonomy as the first priority, when the debtor is unable to pay off his debts, the creditor shall liquidate his claims in accordance with the contract. Secondly, according to the following rules, when the agreement is unclear or not. One is when the debtor himself provides guaranty of property, the creditor shall first liquidate his claims to the property. While the property is not sufficient to pay off the claims, the guarantor shall be responsible for the supplementary liability. The other is when the third party provides property, securities and egalitarian stance between guarantor shall be applied. That is the guaranty of person has the same liquidation order as the property, giving the creditor the option. The problem is that, the property law only regulated the guarantor may exercise the right of recourse against the debtor after he has shouldered the guarantee liability. However, it does not stipulate that the third party may exercise the right of recourse against other guarantors after he has shouldered the guarantee liability. The author puts forward the following views on this question. First, in accordance with article 176 of the property law, the position of securities and egalitarian stance between guarantor has been clearly defined. Therefore, if the parties fail to make a specific agreement, the guaranty between securities and guarantee is joint liability. The guarantor who bears the responsibility for security may exercise the right of recourse against other guarantors, but the extent of the recovery scope shall be in the share that should undertake. Second, the author advocates adopting proportional distribution principle about the recovery scope of mixed co-guarantors, that the responsibility of each guarantor shall be calculated according to the proportion of their respective shares. Third, with respect to the sequence of recovery right, the author thinks that should not be forced. The guarantor who undertakes the guarantee liability shall have the right of recourse against the principal debtor or other guarantors who did not undertake the guarantee responsibility.