Short answer. Generally yes. Article 1179 of the Civil Code says an obligation whose performance does not depend on a future or uncertain event, or on a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once. With nothing tying payment to a future date or condition, the other party can be asked to pay immediately.
What the law says
Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once.
Civil Code, Article 1179 — Pure Obligations; Resolutory Conditions. Read the full provision →
This is the default, not a special rule
Article 1179 describes what the Civil Code calls a pure obligation: one whose performance is not tied to a future or uncertain event, and not tied to a past event the parties simply do not know about yet. Where an agreement is silent on timing and does not attach the payment to any condition, it falls into this category by default. The statute's consequence for that situation is direct — the obligation is demandable at once.
What 'demandable at once' actually allows
Being demandable at once means the creditor does not have to wait for anything to happen before asking for performance — no maturity date to reach, no condition to be satisfied first. As soon as the obligation exists, it can be demanded. This is the opposite of an obligation with a suspensive condition or a fixed term, where the creditor has to wait until the event occurs or the date arrives before payment can be required.
Two things that would take you out of this rule
The article's own wording marks the boundary: performance depending on a future or uncertain event, or on a past event unknown to the parties, is what this article excludes. If your agreement actually does tie payment to something like that — a delivery, an approval, some other event — even without using the word "condition" explicitly, the obligation may not be demandable at once in the way this article describes, and a different rule would apply to it instead.
Why the wording of your agreement still matters
Whether Article 1179 applies turns on what the agreement actually says, or fails to say, about timing and conditions — not on what either side assumed informally. If the paperwork genuinely sets no deadline and no condition, this article supports demanding payment now. But agreements are sometimes read to imply a condition even without express language, so it is worth having a lawyer look at the actual wording before relying on this rule in a dispute.
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.
- Hongkong and Shanghai Banking corp., Ltd. Staff Retirement Plan vs. Sps. Bienvenido and Editha Broqueza, G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Raquel Estipona (Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) and Sps. Alberto Co and Lulu Co, G.R. No. 207407, September 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Socorro T. Clemente, as substituted by Salvador T. Clemente vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220008, February 20, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Enrique C. Abad, et al. vs. Goldloop Properties, Inc, G.R. No. 168108, April 13, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →