Short answer. Yes. Under Article 883, if the person interested in the condition deliberately prevents its fulfillment — without any fault on your part — the law treats the condition as having been complied with. You are not penalized for an impossibility that another person engineered against you.
What the law says
If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition shall be deemed to have been complied with.
Civil Code, Article 883 — When the Mode Cannot Be Fulfilled Exactly. Read the full provision →
What Article 883 protects against
A testator sometimes imposes a purpose or obligation on an heir as a condition for receiving a bequest — this is called a modal institution. The heir is supposed to carry out a specific act, such as supporting a relative, completing a study, or erecting a monument. The problem Article 883 addresses is straightforward but serious: what happens when the very person who benefits from your non-compliance deliberately makes it impossible for you to comply? Without this protection, that person could manufacture a breach and then claim the bequest for themselves. The law does not allow that.
The two-part rule — analogous compliance and bad-faith obstruction
Article 883 has two distinct situations. First: if the modal institution cannot be carried out exactly as the testator specified — through no fault of the heir — it must be carried out in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with the testator's wishes. This covers honest impossibility, like a named beneficiary who has died. Second, and more directly relevant to your situation: if the person interested in the condition deliberately prevents its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition is deemed to have been complied with. The bad faith of the obstructor cannot be used as a weapon against you.
What 'without the fault of the heir' requires you to show
The protection applies only when two things are true: the obstruction came from the interested party, and you were not at fault. This means you must have been genuinely ready and willing to fulfill the modal condition. If the impossibility was partly your own doing — if you delayed, ignored the obligation, or gave the other party a legitimate reason to act — the protection may not fully apply. Courts look at the actual sequence of events: who moved first, whether you had made any attempt to comply, and whether the obstruction was deliberate rather than incidental.
What you should gather before consulting a lawyer
To build a clear picture of your situation, document everything you can about the modal condition as the will states it, the steps you took or planned to take to fulfill it, and the specific actions of the interested party that made fulfillment impossible. Communications — messages, letters, any evidence of deliberate interference — are particularly useful. The legal question turns on intent and fault, so the more concrete your record of events, the better position you are in. A lawyer can assess whether the facts support a finding that the condition is deemed fulfilled under this article.
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.
- Johnny S. Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals and Maria Marlena Coscuella y Belleza Villacarlos, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →