Short answer. Wherever the thing was located when the obligation was created. Article 1251 provides that, absent an express stipulation, if the undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, payment shall be made wherever the thing might be at the moment the obligation was constituted — not your current location or the debtor's domicile.
What the law says
There being no express stipulation and if the undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, the payment shall be made wherever the thing might be at the moment the obligation was constituted.
Civil Code, Article 1251 — Place of Payment. Read the full provision →
The starting rule: what the contract itself says
Article 1251 opens with the simplest answer: payment shall be made in the place designated in the obligation. If your contract had named a place, that would control outright — but since it does not, the article moves on to the rule that applies specifically to a determinate thing like a car, rather than leaving the place of payment entirely undetermined.
No stipulation, and a determinate thing: where the thing was
This is the exact rule for your situation: there being no express stipulation and if the undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, the payment shall be made wherever the thing might be at the moment the obligation was constituted. The relevant location is not where the car happens to be sitting today, and not either party's current address — it is where the car was located at the moment the obligation was originally created.
The fallback rule for everything else
That specific rule applies only to determinate things. Article 1251 separately provides: in any other case the place of payment shall be the domicile of the debtor. Because your contract does involve delivering a determinate thing, this fallback rule is not the one governing your payment — the determinate-thing rule above takes precedence for your situation, and the debtor's domicile is simply not the relevant place here.
A penalty for changing domicile, and court venue is separate
Article 1251 adds one more protection: if the debtor changes his domicile in bad faith or after he has incurred in delay, the additional expenses shall be borne by him. And it closes with a reminder that this article concerns where payment is made, not where a lawsuit over the obligation would be filed: these provisions are without prejudice to venue under the Rules of Court. Where you may sue over a breach, in other words, is governed separately from where payment itself is due.
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.
- Santiago Ibasco vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 117488, September 5, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →