Short answer. No. Article 1159 of the Civil Code is clear: obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be complied with in good faith. Inconvenience is not a legal excuse. Walking away from a valid contract exposes you to liability for breach.
What the law says
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Civil Code, Article 1159 — Obligations From Contracts (Autonomy of Contracts). Read the full provision →
Contracts bind like law between the parties
Article 1159 is one of the foundational principles of Philippine contract law. When you freely enter a valid contract, the obligations you assumed are not suggestions — they have the force of law between you and the other party. The phrase is deliberate: just as legislation binds the general public, a contract binds the parties to it. The fact that compliance has become costly, inconvenient, or less attractive than you anticipated does not change this. The rule exists precisely to ensure that agreements can be relied upon.
Good faith is also required
Article 1159 adds a second requirement beyond mere technical compliance: contracts must be complied with in good faith. This means performing your obligations honestly and fully, not looking for technical loopholes to avoid the substance of what you agreed to. A party who does the minimum possible while frustrating the other party's reasonable expectations is not complying in good faith. Good faith is both a floor and a ceiling: it prevents under-performance cloaked in technical compliance, and it also prevents the other party from demanding more than the contract fairly requires.
What happens when a party refuses to comply
A party who refuses to comply with a valid contract without a legally recognised excuse is in breach. The injured party has remedies: specific performance — a court order compelling the breaching party to do what was agreed — or rescission with damages, or damages alone, depending on the nature of the contract and the circumstances. Courts take Article 1159 seriously and do not look favourably on parties who simply walk away from their obligations because the deal turned out to be less advantageous than they hoped.
Excuses that the law does recognise
Article 1159 does not mean contracts are unbreakable under any circumstances. There are legitimate legal grounds to refuse or delay performance: impossibility caused by a fortuitous event beyond the party's control; a defect in the contract that makes it void or voidable; a specific contractual provision allowing termination under defined conditions; or mutual agreement of the parties to release each other from the obligation. But none of these is 'inconvenient' or 'more expensive than expected.' If you believe you have a legitimate legal basis to stop performing, get legal advice before simply ceasing — self-help in contract law usually makes your situation worse.
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.
- The Wellex Group, Inc. vs. U-Land Airlines, Co., Ltd, G.R. No. 167519, January 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Bayani H. Andal and Gracia G. Andal vs. Philippine National Bank, Register of Deeds of Batangas City, Jose C. Corales, G.R. No. 194201, November 27, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pilipinas Hino, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, Fernando V. Reyes, et al, G.R. No. 126570, August 18, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →