Short answer. Yes. Article 1227 provides that if, after the creditor has decided to require fulfillment of the obligation, performance becomes impossible without fault, the penalty may still be enforced. Because the creditor already elected fulfillment before the impossibility arose, the penalty remains enforceable despite performance no longer being possible.
What the law says
However, if after the creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced.
Civil Code, Article 1227 — No Escape by Paying the Penalty. Read the full provision →
Why the timing of the creditor's election matters
Article 1227 addresses exactly this sequence of events: if after the creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced. The key fact is that the creditor already chose fulfillment as the remedy before impossibility arose. Once that election was made, the creditor is not simply left without a remedy when performance later becomes impossible without fault; the law lets the penalty step in as the fallback the creditor can pursue instead.
How this differs from the ordinary rule on impossibility
Ordinarily, an obligation is extinguished when performance becomes impossible through no fault of the debtor, releasing the debtor entirely. Article 1227 carves out a distinct consequence for this specific sequence: because the creditor had already required fulfillment, and only afterward did impossibility supervene, the penalty attached to the obligation may still be enforced even though outright performance can no longer happen. The penalty functions here as the substitute the creditor may still pursue, rather than the debtor being fully released the way an ordinary impossibility case might otherwise resolve.
Why the sequence, not just the impossibility, decides the outcome
The same article generally prevents a debtor from buying his way out of an obligation simply by paying the penalty, and generally prevents a creditor from demanding both fulfillment and the penalty at once. Read together with the impossibility rule, the article treats the creditor's prior election to require fulfillment as significant: having already committed to that choice, the creditor is not penalized for the debtor's later impossibility and may fall back on the penalty instead of losing the remedy altogether.
What this means for you as the debtor
Because the creditor already demanded fulfillment before performance became impossible, you should expect the penalty to remain enforceable against you under Article 1227, notwithstanding that the impossibility itself was not your fault. This is different from a situation where impossibility arises before any demand for fulfillment was made, where the analysis of what obligations survive can differ. Reviewing the exact timeline of the creditor's demand relative to when performance actually became impossible is central to confirming whether this specific rule applies to your case.
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.
- Heirs of Manuel Uy Ek Liong vs. Mauricia Meer Castillo, Heirs of Buenaflor C. Umali, represented by Nancy Umali, et al, G.R. No. 176425, June 5, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →