Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1225, even though the object or service is physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if the parties so intend. Divisibility is not decided by physical shape alone; the will of the parties, or a provision of law, can require the whole thing to be performed as one.
What the law says
even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties
Civil Code, Article 1225 — Which Obligations Are Divisible or Indivisible. Read the full provision →
Physical divisibility is only the starting point
The Code first sorts obligations by their nature. Under Article 1225, obligations to give definite things and those which are not susceptible of partial performance shall be deemed to be indivisible, while things like a set number of days of work or work measured by metrical units are treated as divisible because they can naturally be done in parts. But this physical test is not the last word. The article is careful to say that the way a thing can be split up is only a default. What ultimately controls is whether the law or the parties have decided the performance must come as a single, undivided whole.
The parties' intention can override physical splitting
This is the heart of your question. Article 1225 provides that even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties. So you and the other side are free to agree that a debt or service which could be delivered in installments must instead be performed all at once. The physical possibility of partial delivery does not defeat your agreement. If your contract shows that you intended one complete performance — not piecemeal compliance — the obligation is legally indivisible, and tendering only a part is not proper performance of it.
Why the label matters, and its limits
Making an obligation indivisible has real consequences: the creditor can insist on the entire performance together, and partial fulfilment generally does not discharge the debtor or entitle him to demand acceptance of a fraction. For obligations not to do, the article says divisibility is judged by the character of the prestation in each particular case, not by a fixed rule. Intention should be clear; courts read the contract as a whole to see whether the parties truly meant a single indivisible performance or merely described one lump sum. A well-drafted clause stating that performance is indivisible removes the guesswork and protects the party who needs the whole thing at once.
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. Alexander and Julie Lam vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd, G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. No. 244247, November 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, et al. vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections/Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) etc., et al. vs. Commission on Electons etc./Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al./Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., et al. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201112 / G.R. No. 201121 / G.R. No. 201127 / G.R. No. 201413, October 23, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →