Short answer. Yes. Article 2028 defines a compromise as a contract in which the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a lawsuit or end one already begun. Reciprocal concessions are essential — if only one side gives something up and the other yields nothing, the agreement is not, in law, a compromise.

What the law says

A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.

Civil Code, Article 2028 — Compromise Defined. Read the full provision →

What the definition actually contains

The definition is compact but every word earns its place: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. First, it is a contract — it needs consent, an object and a cause like any other, and it binds the parties who agree to it. Second, its purpose is to head off a lawsuit that has not started or to stop one already running. Third, and the point of your question, the parties reach it by making reciprocal concessions. That phrase is not decorative; it is the mechanism the law says a compromise works by.

Reciprocal concessions are the core requirement

Reciprocal means running both ways. A compromise contemplates each party giving up something it was asserting — a claim, a defence, an amount, a demand — in return for the other doing likewise, so that both step back from their maximum positions to meet in a settlement neither fully wanted. If one party surrenders its whole claim while the other concedes nothing, there is no reciprocity, and what you have is a waiver, a donation, or an admission, but not a compromise as Article 2028 defines it. The concessions need not be equal in value; what the definition requires is that concessions move in both directions, not that they balance to the peso.

What counts as a concession, and what does not

A concession is any yielding of a position a party could otherwise have pressed. It may be accepting less than you claimed, dropping a counterclaim, extending time, releasing a security, or abandoning a defence you might have won on. It does not have to be a payment, and it does not have to be a certainty given up — surrendering a genuinely arguable point counts, because the value of a compromise lies precisely in trading the risk of litigation for the certainty of settlement. What is not a concession is a promise merely to do what you were already bound to do; performing an existing obligation gives up nothing and cannot be the consideration that makes the contract a compromise.

Why the label matters in practice

Whether an agreement qualifies as a compromise is not a mere label. Compromises carry particular consequences — they settle the matter between the parties and, once judicially approved, can be enforced with the force of a judgment rather than requiring a fresh suit. An arrangement that lacks reciprocal concessions may still be a valid contract of some other kind, but it will not attract the rules that govern compromises. So when you record a settlement, it is worth making the mutual concessions visible on the face of the document — what each side gave up — both to show a true compromise was reached and to fix what each party agreed to accept.

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.