Short answer. Article 1185 fills the gap by asking what time was probably contemplated. When no time has been fixed for a negative condition, the law deems it fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated, bearing in mind the nature of the obligation — not a fixed statutory deadline, but a reasonable, obligation-specific estimate.
What the law says
If no time has been fixed, the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated, bearing in mind the nature of the obligation.
Civil Code, Article 1185 — Negative Condition. Read the full provision →
When a time has actually been fixed
Article 1185 first covers the case where the contract does set a time: the condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time shall render the obligation effective from the moment the time indicated has elapsed, or if it has become evident that the event cannot occur. There, the answer is mechanical — the fixed date passing, or the event becoming clearly impossible, settles the question.
When no time has been fixed at all
Your situation is the one the article addresses next: if no time has been fixed, the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated, bearing in mind the nature of the obligation. Rather than leaving the negative condition permanently unresolved, the law supplies a substitute reference point drawn from what the parties would probably have had in mind.
What "probably contemplated" and "nature of the obligation" mean
This is a contextual standard, not a fixed number of days or months the law hands you. It asks what the parties, given the kind of obligation involved, would reasonably have expected as the point by which the non-occurrence of the event should be treated as settled. A quick commercial transaction and a long-term construction arrangement would likely point to very different answers under this same standard.
What this means for your contract
Because your contract left the timing open, Article 1185 does not leave you without an answer — it directs attention to what time was probably contemplated for this particular kind of obligation. Working that out means looking closely at the nature and purpose of your specific agreement, since the article deliberately avoids imposing one uniform deadline across every kind of contract, in favor of a standard flexible enough to fit obligations of very different kinds.
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.
- The Wellex Group, Inc. vs. U-Land Airlines, Co., Ltd, G.R. No. 167519, January 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sergio R. Osmeña III vs. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 212686, October 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →