Short answer. Not by simply keeping the property. Article 2137 says the creditor does not acquire ownership of the real estate for non-payment, and any stipulation to the contrary is void. Instead he may petition the court for payment of the debt or the sale of the property — and the Rules of Court on the foreclosure of mortgages apply.
What the law says
The creditor does not acquire the ownership of the real estate for non-payment of the debt within the period agreed upon.
Civil Code, Article 2137 — No Automatic Ownership. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Every stipulation to the contrary shall be void.
Civil Code, Article 2137 — No Automatic Ownership. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the creditor may petition the court for the payment of the debt or the sale of the real property.
Civil Code, Article 2137 — No Automatic Ownership. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the Rules of Court on the foreclosure of mortgages shall apply.
Civil Code, Article 2137 — No Automatic Ownership. Read the full provision →
No automatic ownership on default
Article 2137 forbids the shortcut a creditor might hope for. It states that the creditor does not acquire the ownership of the real estate for non-payment of the debt within the period agreed upon, and it adds that every stipulation to the contrary shall be void. So even if your antichresis contract said the creditor becomes the owner the moment you miss the deadline, that clause has no effect — the law strikes it down. Possession of the property and collection of its fruits, which antichresis gives the creditor, never ripen automatically into ownership. Missing a payment does not, by itself, cost you the land.
He must go to court
What the creditor may do is spelled out. The article says the creditor may petition the court for the payment of the debt or the sale of the real property. In other words, to realise on the security he has to bring the matter to court — either to compel payment or to have the property sold and the proceeds applied to the debt. This is a judicial process, not a private seizure. The creditor cannot help himself to the property or sell it on his own authority; he asks the court to order payment or a sale. That requirement is the debtor's protection against being stripped of the property without due process.
Foreclosure like a mortgage
To answer your question directly: yes, the mechanism resembles a mortgage foreclosure, because the article says so. It provides that in the case of a court-ordered sale, the Rules of Court on the foreclosure of mortgages shall apply. So although antichresis is a distinct security over the fruits of real property, when it comes to enforcing against the property itself for non-payment, the same judicial foreclosure procedure used for mortgages governs. The creditor follows that route — a court action leading to a sale under those rules — rather than any special or faster method peculiar to antichresis.
Why the law forbids the automatic transfer
The prohibition on automatic ownership reflects a broader principle against a creditor keeping security worth more than the debt. Letting a creditor take the whole property on a missed payment could hand him a windfall far exceeding what he was owed. By channelling enforcement through a court sale, the law ensures the property is converted to money in a regulated way, the debt is paid from the proceeds, and any surplus can return to the debtor. The void-stipulation rule means the parties cannot contract around this: an agreement letting the creditor seize ownership on default simply does not bind you.
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.
- Sps. Charito M. Reyes and Roberto Reyes, et al. vs. Heir of Benjamin Malance, et al, G.R. No. 219071, August 24, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Home Guaranty Corporation vs. La Savoie Development Corporation, G.R. No. 168616, January 28, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →