Short answer. Yes. Article 1357 lets you compel the other party to execute the required document, and this right can be exercised simultaneously with your action to enforce the contract. You do not need two lawsuits, one case can ask the court both to enforce the agreement and to order the missing document executed.

What the law says

This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.

Civil Code, Article 1357 — Right to Compel Execution of Form. Read the full provision →

What the law says

the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected

Civil Code, Article 1357 — Right to Compel Execution of Form. Read the full provision →

One Right, One Case

Article 1357 lets either party to a contract that needs a special form compel the other to execute that form once the agreement is already perfected. The law does not force the injured party to wait, file, and win a separate suit just to get the missing document before pursuing the substance of the deal itself. The remedy exists precisely because form and substance are treated as separate issues that need not travel through separate proceedings, so a party who already holds a perfected agreement is not left waiting on formality alone.

Why Simultaneous Filing Matters

Litigation is expensive and slow, and requiring two lawsuits over one dispute wastes both time and money. By allowing the action to compel the proper form and the action to enforce the contract to proceed together, the rule avoids splitting a single controversy into successive cases that could produce inconsistent rulings or wear down a party who already has a valid claim.

What Triggers the Right

The right applies to contracts covered by the following article's list of transactions that must appear in a public document, such as those creating or transferring real rights over immovable property. The contract must already be perfected before this right arises, this is not a tool for forcing someone into a deal, only for getting the paperwork to match a deal already struck between the parties.

Practical Filing Considerations

A party invoking this usually includes both causes of action in the same complaint: one for specific performance or damages on the substance of the contract, another compelling execution of the deed or public instrument itself. Courts hearing the enforcement claim can resolve the form issue in the same proceeding rather than requiring the plaintiff to return to court later for a second, separate case. Where the contract already spells out the parties' obligations clearly, the request to execute the proper instrument is often a straightforward addition to the prayer for relief rather than a contested issue in itself, since the underlying agreement has already been proven.

The Cost of Not Combining Them

Skipping this option and filing two suits instead is not fatal, but it invites unnecessary delay and cost, and a defendant can sometimes use the pendency of one action to stall the other. Raising both claims together, where the facts support it, keeps the dispute on a single track from filing to judgment. Filing separately can also expose a plaintiff to arguments about splitting a single cause of action, an issue courts take seriously when the same facts and the same contract underlie both claims.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.