Short answer. No. Even with the grade left blank, your supplier cannot dump the worst on you. Article 1246 says that where quality was not stated, the debtor cannot deliver a thing of inferior quality — just as you cannot demand a thing of superior quality.
What the law says
the creditor cannot demand a thing of superior quality. Neither can the debtor deliver a thing of inferior quality. The purpose of the obligation and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration.
Civil Code, Article 1246 — Quality of a Generic Thing. Read the full provision →
The law fills the silence with a middle standard
When a contract names only a generic thing — rice, cement, lumber — and says nothing about grade, the law does not leave the quality to the seller's whim. Article 1246 applies to the delivery of an indeterminate or generic thing, whose quality and circumstances have not been stated, and sets a balanced rule. On one side, the creditor cannot demand a thing of superior quality. On the other, neither can the debtor deliver a thing of inferior quality. The gap left by the parties is filled with a medium standard, so neither buyer nor supplier can exploit the silence to insist on the best or unload the worst.
Why the supplier cannot deliver the lowest grade
Your supplier's plan to hand over the cheapest, lowest-quality version runs straight into the second half of that rule. Because the contract stated no grade, the law treats the parties as having intended a reasonable, ordinary quality — not the floor of what could technically pass as rice. Delivering an inferior grade is exactly what the article forbids the debtor from doing. So the absence of a stated grade is not a licence to shortchange you; it is a signal that a fair, average quality is owed. A delivery of plainly inferior goods is not proper performance of the obligation.
Purpose and circumstances shape what is proper
The article does not stop at a bare 'medium' rule. It directs that the purpose of the obligation and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration. What counts as acceptable quality can therefore shift with the known use of the goods, trade usage, the price agreed, and the dealings between the parties. Rice bought plainly for resale in a market, for instance, may reasonably imply a quality fit for that purpose. So the standard is not rigid; it is a fair quality read in light of why the thing was being supplied and the surrounding facts.
What you can insist on — and what you cannot
In practical terms, you are entitled to refuse goods of inferior quality and to insist on delivery that meets the reasonable middle standard the law supplies. What you cannot do is use the blank grade to demand a premium, top-tier product, because the same article denies the creditor a thing of superior quality. The cleanest way to avoid the dispute entirely is to state the grade in the contract; where you did not, Article 1246 still protects you from the bottom of the barrel while holding you to a fair, not maximal, expectation.
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.
- Aurora Fe B. Camacho vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 127520, February 9, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →