Must an antichresis put the principal and interest in writing to be valid?

Writing is a condition of the contract's existence

Antichresis is unusual in how strictly it treats form. Article 2134 provides that The amount of the principal and of the interest shall be specified in writing; otherwise, the contract of antichresis shall be void. This is not a rule about how you prove the contract — it is a rule about whether the contract exists at all. If the principal and the interest are not stated in writing, there is no antichresis to enforce, quote or reform. The requirement goes to validity itself, so an arrangement that fails it does not produce a weak antichresis; it produces none.

Both figures, not just one

The article demands two specific amounts in writing: the principal and the interest. Setting down one without the other does not satisfy it. The reason ties back to how an antichresis works — the creditor takes the fruits and applies them to interest and then principal, so the running account cannot be kept honestly unless both figures are fixed at the outset. A document that records the loan but leaves the interest unstated, or the reverse, leaves the very numbers the contract is built to work with undefined, which is why the law treats the omission as fatal rather than curable.

Void, not merely unenforceable

It is worth contrasting this with the more familiar rule that certain contracts must be in writing only to be enforceable. Under that regime an oral contract still exists and can gain force once confirmed or performed; the writing is a matter of proof. Article 2134 is stronger. A non-conforming antichresis is void — a nullity from the beginning — and it cannot be rescued by partial performance, by the creditor having taken fruits, or by the parties' later acknowledgement. The distinction between a contract that is void and one that is merely unenforceable for want of a writing decides whether anything can be salvaged, and here nothing can.

Put both numbers in the document

The practical safeguard is simple and unforgiving: before relying on an antichresis, make sure the written contract states both the principal and the interest in figures. A creditor who takes possession and gathers fruits under an arrangement that never fixed both amounts in writing may find he holds no antichresis and must account differently for what he took. A debtor faced with such a creditor should check the same thing, because the absence of either figure from the writing is not a technicality to be argued around — it is the ground on which the whole contract falls.

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.

• Amada Cotoner-Zacarias vs. Sps. Alfredo Revilla and the Heirs of Paz Revilla, G.R. No. 190901, November 12, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Aniceto Bangis, substituted by his heirs, namely Rodolfo B. Bangis, et al. vs. Heirs of Serafin and Salud Adolfo, namely: Luz A. Banniester, et al, G.R. No. 190875, June 13, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 2134 — Amounts Must Be in Writing