Short answer. Yes, Philippine law allows the sale of things that have only a potential existence, like a future harvest. The sale is valid and takes effect once the thing comes into existence. However, if what you are selling is a purely imaginary hope with no real basis, the contract is void.
What the law says
Things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale.
Civil Code, Article 1461 — Sale of Things With Potential Existence. Read the full provision →
What Article 1461 allows
Article 1461 of the Civil Code states plainly: "Things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale." A future harvest, the offspring of livestock not yet born, fish not yet caught, goods not yet manufactured — all of these can be validly sold today. Philippine law recognizes that commerce would be severely limited if every item had to physically exist at the moment of contracting. The law accommodates forward-looking deals by treating potential existence as sufficient to ground a valid sale.
What happens if the thing never comes to exist
When the sale is of a mere hope or expectancy — meaning both parties understand that the thing may or may not materialize — the contract is treated as conditional. "The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence." If the rice crop fails entirely because of drought, or the fish are not caught, the sale does not become effective. The buyer would not be entitled to demand the unproduced thing, and any payment made would need to be returned unless the parties agreed otherwise.
The line between a real prospect and a vain hope
Article 1461 draws a line at pure fantasy. "The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void." This means that if there is no realistic basis for the thing ever coming into existence — you sell the harvest of land you do not own and cannot plant, or the production of a factory that does not exist and is not being built — the contract is void from the start. The distinction between a valid sale of potential goods and a void sale of a vain hope depends on whether there is a realistic, grounded prospect that the thing will actually come to be.
Practical points for forward sales
If you are a farmer selling the next rice or sugarcane harvest, or a supplier agreeing today to deliver goods you have not yet produced, Article 1461 supports your contract. What protects both you and your buyer is clarity in the written agreement: what specific thing is being sold, when it is expected to exist, what quantity is intended, and what happens if only part of it materializes. A well-drafted contract avoids disputes about whether the sale was of the hope itself or conditioned on the thing coming into existence — two very different legal outcomes.
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.
- Spouses Mariano P. Marasigan and Josefina Leal vs. Chevron Phils., Inc., et al, G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Fidela Mananzala vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 115101, March 2, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →