Short answer. No. Article 2136 says the debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable in an antichresis until he has totally paid what he owes. Curiously, the creditor may go the other way and compel you to take the property back — to escape his own duties over it — unless you stipulated otherwise.
What the law says
The debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first having totally paid what he owes the creditor.
Civil Code, Article 2136 — Reacquiring the Immovable. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the latter, in order to exempt himself from the obligations imposed upon him by the preceding article, may always compel the debtor to enter again upon the enjoyment of the property, except when there is a stipulation to the contrary
Civil Code, Article 2136 — Reacquiring the Immovable. Read the full provision →
How antichresis holds the property
In an antichresis, the creditor is given the immovable and applies its fruits first to the interest and then to the principal of the debt; the debtor surrenders the enjoyment of the property as the security. Against that background Article 2136 fixes when the debtor can have his property back: The debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first having totally paid what he owes the creditor. The right to resume enjoyment is all-or-nothing. Partial payment, however substantial, does not entitle the debtor to step back into use of the property while any part of the debt remains.
Why total payment is required
The fruits of the immovable are the creditor's means of being paid and the practical substance of his security. If the debtor could resume enjoyment before clearing the debt, he would reclaim the very fruits the creditor is entitled to apply against what is owed, hollowing out the arrangement. So the Code makes the debtor's re-entry depend on complete satisfaction of the obligation. Until that point the creditor keeps possession and continues to gather and apply the fruits, and the debtor's route back to his land runs only through paying the debt in full.
The creditor's power to hand it back
The article then adds a striking counter-power: the creditor, in order to exempt himself from the obligations imposed upon him by the preceding article, may always compel the debtor to enter again upon the enjoyment of the property, except when there is a stipulation to the contrary. An antichretic creditor carries burdens — caring for the property and meeting the taxes and charges on it. To shed those, he may force the property back onto the debtor. This does not cancel the debt; it merely relieves the creditor of the duties of holding the land, unless the parties agreed to remove this option.
What this means for you
If you want the enjoyment of your property back, the only sure path is to pay the debt in full; nothing short of that compels the creditor to return it to you. At the same time, be aware that the creditor can turn the tables and require you to resume the property in order to escape his own obligations over it — so check whether your contract contains a stipulation to the contrary that removes that power. Either way, the return of possession and the extinguishment of the debt are separate questions: getting the land back does not, by itself, mean you owe nothing.
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 →