Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code expressly allows future things to be the object of a contract, which is why people validly buy a condominium unit still under construction or next season's harvest. The main exception is a contract over a future inheritance, which the law forbids unless a statute allows it.
What the law says
All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the object of a contract.
Civil Code, Article 1347 — Object of Contracts. Read the full provision →
What can be the object of a contract
The Civil Code casts the net wide and then carves out exceptions. Things qualify so long as they are not outside the commerce of men - so public plazas, roads and other property devoted to public use cannot be sold, and neither can things the law removes from private dealing. Rights qualify too: All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts, which covers receivables and leasehold rights but not purely personal rights that die with the holder. Services qualify if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Existence at the moment of signing is simply not part of the test.
Future things, and the difference between two kinds of deal
Because future things are allowed, you can contract today over a building not yet finished, goods not yet manufactured, or a crop not yet planted. Two shapes are common and they allocate risk very differently. In the first, the buyer is buying the thing itself if it comes into existence - if the harvest fails, there is nothing to deliver and nothing to pay. In the second, the buyer is buying the chance, and pays whether or not anything materialises. Which one you signed decides who absorbs the loss when the thing never appears, and contracts over future goods often say nothing about it. Spell it out before signing.
The hard limit: future inheritance
The exception is blunt. No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. A future inheritance is property that will pass on someone's death where the succession has not yet opened - the person is still alive - and where the expectant heir has no present right in the property, only a hope. So an agreement among children selling or dividing their still-living parent's land is generally void, and a void contract cannot be cured by ratification, notarisation, or years of everyone acting on it. Once the parent has died, the heirs' shares are present rights and can be sold, waived, or partitioned in the ordinary way.
Why families and buyers get caught by this
The trouble usually surfaces years later, when someone who signed such an agreement, took possession, and built on the land discovers the paper carries no title. Buyers of pre-selling projects have a related but different exposure: the contract is valid, yet performance depends on a developer who may not deliver, so the protections that matter are the payment schedule, the title status of the land, and the developer's regulatory permits. Before you sign over something that does not exist yet - or a share in an estate of someone still living - have the document checked. This is general legal information, not advice on your transaction, and no outcome is promised.
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.
- Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer vs. Spouses Alfredo Diaz, et al, G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Belinda Tañedo, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 104482, January 22, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Evangeline Engao Asis, Heirs of Felicitation Engao-Bautista, Namely: Fernando B. Bautista, Agueda Fe B, G.R. No. 242127, September 15, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Zosimo Q. Maravilla vs. Privaldo Tupas, G.R. No. 192132, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →