Short answer. For negative obligations — obligations not to do something — Article 1225 of the Civil Code provides that divisibility or indivisibility is determined by the character of the prestation in each particular case. There is no blanket rule; the nature of the specific thing you are forbidden from doing determines the answer.
What the law says
In obligations not to do, divisibility or indivisibility shall be determined by the character of the prestation in each particular case.
Civil Code, Article 1225 — Which Obligations Are Divisible or Indivisible. Read the full provision →
Why negative obligations need their own rule
Article 1225 of the Civil Code classifies obligations as divisible or indivisible depending on what must be performed. For obligations to give definite things or to perform acts susceptible of measurement, the law provides clearer rules. Negative obligations — where one is bound not to do something — resist easy categorization because the act forbidden varies enormously in character. Article 1225 therefore prescribes a case-by-case approach: divisibility or indivisibility shall be determined by the character of the prestation in each particular case. You look at what specifically is prohibited and reason from there.
Indivisible negative obligations: an example
Some negative obligations are indivisible by their nature. An obligation not to build a structure on a specific lot, not to compete in a defined market, or not to disclose particular confidential information is binary — either the act was done or it was not. Partial violation is as meaningful as total violation; there is no sensible way to perform the obligation halfway and claim partial compliance. These prestations are indivisible because any act in the forbidden category is a breach, and the prohibition cannot be meaningfully split.
Divisible negative obligations: an example
Other negative obligations may be divisible in character. If a party agrees not to sell goods in a particular territory for a period of time, the obligation could in principle be breached progressively — a sale in one city, another in a different city — each breach being a separate, measurable event. Or if the obligation is linked to time — not to perform a certain act during each of several distinct periods — compliance and breach can be assessed period by period. Whether the prestation has inherent separability depends on the specific thing prohibited.
The general framework of Article 1225
Article 1225 applies different standards to different kinds of obligations. Obligations to give definite things are indivisible. Obligations whose object is a set number of days of work, or work by metrical units, or analogous things susceptible of partial performance, are divisible. Even physically divisible acts become indivisible if law or the parties say so. Negative obligations stand apart from all of these because their divisibility is not determined by anything the statute prescribes in advance — it comes from looking at the prestation itself and applying common sense to whether it can be separated into distinct units.
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 →