Short answer. No. Once the seller demands rescission through a notarial act or a court action, Civil Code Article 1592 is clear: the court may not grant the buyer a new term to pay. The window to pay late, which Article 1592 otherwise allows, closes the moment a valid demand is made.
What the law says
After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
Civil Code, Article 1592 — Sale of Realty: Payment Despite an Automatic-Rescission Clause. Read the full provision →
The two-phase rule for real estate sales
Article 1592 creates a system with two distinct phases. In the first phase — after a payment deadline has passed but before any demand for rescission — the buyer of immovable property retains a legal lifeline: they may still pay, even late, and the contract survives. This is true even if the contract itself says that failure to pay on time automatically rescinds the deal. The automatic-rescission clause does not take effect on its own. But once the seller makes a demand — either through a court filing or a notarial act — the second phase begins. At that point, the statute says explicitly: After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
What a notarial demand means
A notarial act is a written demand that has been notarized — signed before a notary public and given the legal weight of a public instrument. It is one of the two valid ways, alongside a court action, to trigger the demand cutoff under Article 1592. Once a valid notarial demand has been served, the buyer's right to pay late under the statute is extinguished. The seller does not need to go to court first; the notarial demand alone is sufficient to start the clock and close the buyer's window.
What you can still challenge
Even after a valid demand, not all defenses are lost. If the demand itself was procedurally defective — for instance, if it was not properly notarized, or if it was not actually served on you in the required manner — the court may find that no effective demand was made and that the window to pay was never formally closed. Separately, if the contract has other defects that would affect its validity or enforceability, those can still be raised. The Article 1592 cutoff addresses the grace period to pay, not every possible argument in the case.
Acting quickly is critical
If you received a notarial demand and have not yet paid, the practical situation is serious. The seller's position is legally strong: the rescission can proceed through court, and you cannot ask for more time under Article 1592. If payment is genuinely possible but there has been a short delay, settling the matter outside court — reaching an agreement with the seller — is a different path that the law does not close. But that depends on the seller's willingness, and no outcome can be promised. Consulting a lawyer promptly to assess all available options is the most useful step you can take right now.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Abelardo Valarao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 130347, March 3, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Karen Nuñez Vito, et al. vs. Norma Moises-Palma, G.R. No. 224466, March 27, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Games and Garments Developers, Inc. vs. Allied Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 181426, July 13, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Juan P. Cabrera vs. Henry Ysaac, G.R. No. 166790, November 19, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →