Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code allows delivery of movable property by the mere consent or agreement of the parties when the thing sold cannot be transferred to the buyer's possession at the time of sale, or when the buyer already holds it for some other reason. No physical handover is needed for ownership to pass.
What the law says
The delivery of movable property may likewise be made by the mere consent or agreement of the contracting parties, if the thing sold cannot be transferred to the possession of the vendee at the time of the sale, or if the latter already had it in his possession for any other reason.
Civil Code, Article 1499 — Traditio Brevi Manu / Longa Manu. Read the full provision →
Delivery does not always mean physical handover
People assume a sale is complete only when the item is physically placed in the buyer's hands. Article 1499 shows the law is more flexible. It provides that the delivery of movable property may likewise be made by the mere consent or agreement of the contracting parties in two situations. The provision recognizes that possession can pass in the eyes of the law without a hand-to-hand transfer, so long as the parties agree that delivery has taken place. This matters because ownership of the thing sold generally passes upon delivery, and here delivery can be accomplished by agreement alone.
When it cannot be transferred at the time of sale
The first case is where the thing cannot be transferred to the possession of the vendee at the time of the sale. The item may be far away, in transit, or otherwise not physically available to hand over at the moment the deal is struck. Rather than force the parties to wait, the law lets their consent stand in for the physical act, so that delivery is deemed made by their agreement. This is a practical rule: it allows a valid, completed sale even where circumstances make an immediate physical transfer impossible, without leaving the buyer's title hanging until the object can be located and moved.
When the buyer already holds the thing
The second case is where the buyer already had it in his possession for any other reason. Suppose the buyer was already holding the item — as a borrower, a depositary, or a lessee — before he bought it. It would be pointless to require him to hand it back to the seller only to receive it again. The law treats the change in the character of his possession, from holding for another to holding as owner, as the delivery. The agreement transforms possession he already has into ownership, and no fresh physical transfer is necessary to complete the sale.
Practical significance
Because ownership normally follows delivery, knowing that delivery can occur by agreement affects who bears risk and who can claim the thing if a dispute arises. A buyer relying on this form of delivery should be able to show the parties' clear consent that delivery was made, since without a physical act the agreement is the proof. Sellers, in turn, should be aware that they may part with ownership without ever physically surrendering the item. Since whether delivery truly occurred turns on the parties' intent and the surrounding facts, the terms of the sale deserve careful attention.