Short answer. No, not on the ground of absence alone. The Civil Code provides that although the cause is not stated in the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary. Silence about cause in a contract is not a defect — the law presumes cause exists until someone proves otherwise.
What the law says
Although the cause is not stated in the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 1354 — Presumption of Cause. Read the full provision →
What cause is and why it matters
In Philippine contract law, cause (or causa) is one of the essential elements of a valid contract — alongside consent and object. In an onerous contract like a sale or lease, cause is what each party gets in exchange for what they give. In a donation or gift, it is the donor's liberality. Without a valid cause, a contract is void. The question Article 1354 addresses is what happens when the contract simply does not state what the cause is — and the answer is a presumption: cause is presumed to exist and to be lawful.
The burden falls on the party denying cause
The presumption of cause means the other party cannot simply point to the silence in the contract as evidence that cause is absent. They must affirmatively prove that cause does not exist, or that it is unlawful. This is a real evidentiary burden. It is not enough to say "the contract doesn't say why we agreed" — they must produce evidence that there was, in fact, no valid reason for the obligation. That is typically a difficult burden to meet, particularly in commercial transactions where parties routinely deal without spelling out the economic rationale in every clause.
Unlawful cause is a different issue
Article 1354 says cause is presumed to exist and to be lawful — but that presumption can be rebutted. If the other party can prove that the cause, though unstated, was actually illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy, the contract may still be challenged on that basis. A contract to provide false testimony, for instance, has a cause — but an unlawful one. Once the unlawful cause is proven, the contract is void. The absence of cause in the text does not protect an unlawful cause that lurks beneath the surface; it just means the challenging party must prove the unlawful cause through evidence, not assumption.
Practical implications for your contract
If you are defending a contract that does not state its cause, Article 1354 gives you a strong starting position. The other party carries the burden of proof. In the meantime, you should be ready to offer evidence — if challenged — that a legitimate cause did exist at the time the contract was formed: correspondence, business records, or testimony that shows why the parties entered the agreement. This is not required to establish the contract's validity (the presumption handles that), but having the evidence ready makes it much harder for the opposing party to build a credible challenge.
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.
- Ricardo V. Quintos vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dioscoro Poliño Bacala, substitute Judicial Guardian of Incompetent Aquilino O. Poliño vs. Heirs of, G.R. No. 200608, February 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Generoso Sepe vs. Heirs of Anastacia Kilang, rep. by her children Maria, Donata, Feliciana,... B.M. No. 3288 April 10, 2019 Mercuria D. So vs. Ma. Lucille P. Lee, G.R. No. 199766, April 10, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dr. Rico Vargas Substituted By His Wife, Cecilia Vargas And Children, Namely: Richelle Josie Judy Vargas-castro, Arvee T. Vargas And Cecilia Vargas, vs. Jose F. Acsayan, Jr, G.R. No. 206780, March 20, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →