Short answer. No, generally not. Article 1192 says that if it cannot be determined which party first violated the contract, the obligation is deemed extinguished, and each side bears its own damages. Neither of you can recover damages from the other under these circumstances.
What the law says
If it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his own damages.
Civil Code, Article 1192 — Both Parties in Breach. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts.
Civil Code, Article 1192 — Both Parties in Breach. Read the full provision →
When neither party can be identified as first, the obligation ends
Article 1192 addresses exactly the situation you describe. It provides that "if it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his own damages." Rather than leaving the contract in limbo or trying to apportion fault where the sequence of events is genuinely unclear, the law simply treats the obligation as ended, with each side absorbing whatever losses they individually suffered.
This differs from the situation where the first infractor IS known
It is worth contrasting your situation with the article's other rule, which applies when the order of breach can be established: "in case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts." That rule assumes it is possible to identify who breached first and reduces — but does not necessarily eliminate — that party's liability because the other side also breached afterward. Your case is different precisely because that identification cannot be made at all.
Why the law resolves genuine uncertainty this way
When the sequence of mutual breaches cannot be determined, assigning liability to either party would essentially be guesswork, and the law avoids resolving a contract dispute on speculation about who acted first. Extinguishing the obligation and having each side bear its own damages is a practical middle ground: it does not reward either party's breach, but it also does not punish one side over the other where the evidence simply cannot establish which side crossed the line first.
What this means for your specific dispute
Based on what you describe, if it genuinely cannot be shown which of you breached the contract first, Article 1192 points toward treating the contractual obligation as extinguished, with each of you responsible for your own losses rather than able to claim damages from the other. This outcome depends heavily on the actual evidence available — if further facts later establish which side breached first after all, the different rule on tempered liability for a first infractor could come into play instead.
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.
- Victoria Ong vs. Ernesto Bogñalbal, et al, G.R. No. 149140, September 12, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lara’s Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc, G.R. No. 225433, August 28, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Alexander and Julie Lam vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd, G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- George C. Fong vs. Jose V. Duenas, G.R. No. 185592, June 15, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →