Short answer. Yes. Article 1225 of the Civil Code treats an obligation to perform a certain number of days of work as a divisible obligation by its very nature. Each day of work is a distinct, measurable unit, and partial performance is inherently possible.
What the law says
When the obligation has for its object the execution of a certain number of days of work, the accomplishment of work by metrical units, or analogous things which by their nature are susceptible of partial performance, it shall be divisible.
Civil Code, Article 1225 — Which Obligations Are Divisible or Indivisible. Read the full provision →
Article 1225 and the rule for days of work
Article 1225 of the Civil Code classifies obligations as divisible or indivisible depending on their nature and what the parties agreed upon. The statute is explicit: "When the obligation has for its object the execution of a certain number of days of work, the accomplishment of work by metrical units, or analogous things which by their nature are susceptible of partial performance, it shall be divisible." An obligation to render, say, fifteen days of work is therefore divisible by law — not because the parties said so, but because the subject matter itself can be split into discrete, countable units.
What divisibility means in practice
When an obligation is divisible, performance can be demanded and rendered in parts. If a worker completes seven days out of fifteen, those seven days of performance have legal value independent of the remaining eight. In a contract dispute, a party who has performed part of a divisible obligation may be entitled to proportional compensation for the part completed, and liability for breach may be computed day by day rather than treating the entire contract as failed or fulfilled. This is different from an obligation to deliver a specific, indivisible thing — where partial delivery may count for nothing.
When the parties or the law can override divisibility
Article 1225 adds an important qualification: even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties. So if your contract expressly states that the worker must complete all fifteen days or the obligation is not fulfilled at all, the parties have converted what would otherwise be a divisible obligation into an indivisible one. The physical capacity for partial performance does not override a clear contractual agreement that the entire performance is what was bargained for. Courts will look at the contract's language and context to determine what the parties actually intended.
Obligations not to do
Article 1225 also addresses negative obligations — those requiring a party not to do something. For those, divisibility is not determined by the subject matter but by the character of the specific prestation in each case. This category is separate from obligations to render work, and the analysis is different. For your situation — a positive obligation to render a set number of days of labor — divisibility follows automatically from the statute, subject only to a contrary agreement between you and the worker.
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. Alexander and Julie Lam vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd, G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. No. 244247, November 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, et al. vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections/Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) etc., et al. vs. Commission on Electons etc./Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al./Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., et al. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201112 / G.R. No. 201121 / G.R. No. 201127 / G.R. No. 201413, October 23, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →