Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code allows consignation alone — without any prior tender or refusal by the creditor — to release the debtor when the title of the obligation, such as the document evidencing the debt, has been lost. This is one of several situations listed where the debtor does not need to show the creditor refused payment first.
What the law says
If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
Civil Code, Article 1256 — Tender of Payment and Consignation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases
Civil Code, Article 1256 — Tender of Payment and Consignation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
Civil Code, Article 1256 — Tender of Payment and Consignation. Read the full provision →
The general rule: tender first, then consignation
Article 1256 of the Civil Code normally works in two steps. First, the debtor tenders payment to the creditor. If the creditor refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor is released from responsibility by consignation — depositing the thing or sum due, typically with the court. That is the ordinary path: an actual offer of payment, followed by a wrongful refusal, followed by the deposit.
When consignation alone is enough
The same article then lists specific situations where consignation alone produces the same effect, without needing to first tender payment or prove the creditor refused it. These include when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; when the creditor is incapacitated to receive payment when it is due; when the creditor, without just cause, refuses to give a receipt; when two or more persons claim the same right to collect; and — the one that applies to you — when the title of the obligation has been lost.
Why a lost document falls into this exception
A lost document evidencing the debt creates a practical problem for an ordinary tender: the debtor may have no clear proof of exactly what is owed, and the creditor could later dispute the payment for lack of the instrument that was supposed to accompany or evidence it. Rather than requiring the debtor to somehow tender payment against a document that no longer exists, and then wait for a refusal that may never formally happen, the law treats the loss of the title of the obligation as, by itself, sufficient ground to go straight to consignation.
What this means for you
Because the loss of the document falls under this listed exception, you do not need to show that your creditor was actually offered payment and refused it. Depositing the sum due, with the required notice to the creditor, can be enough on its own to work a valid consignation on this ground. The creditor's silence, or the fact that nothing has technically been refused, does not defeat the consignation, since the statute treats a lost title of the obligation as its own independent basis for going directly to deposit.
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. Ricardo and Lydia Llobrera, et al. vs. Josefina V. Fernandez, G.R. No. 142882, May 2, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Raquel Estipona (Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) and Sps. Alberto Co and Lulu Co, G.R. No. 207407, September 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edita A. De Leon, Lara Bianca L. Sarte and Renzo Edgar L. Sarte, G.R. No. 243733, January 12, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank vs. Lilibeth S. Chan, G.R. No. 206037, March 13, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →