Short answer. Yes. Article 1225 of the Civil Code says that even where an object or service is physically divisible, the obligation is treated as indivisible if the law provides so or if the parties intended it that way. An agreement to treat delivery as one whole is exactly that kind of intent.
What the law says
However, even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties.
Civil Code, Article 1225 — Which Obligations Are Divisible or Indivisible. Read the full provision →
Physical divisibility is not the whole test
Article 1225 starts from physical characteristics: things that cannot be given in parts, or that are not capable of partial performance, are deemed indivisible, while work measured in days or metrical units is generally divisible. But the article does not stop there. It expressly carves out a further category: an obligation is indivisible whenever the law says so, or whenever the parties intended it to be treated that way, regardless of whether the underlying object or service could, as a physical matter, be split up.
How intent to treat it as a whole is shown
Where a contract's terms show the parties meant delivery, performance, or payment to be taken as a single, complete unit rather than piecemeal, that intent controls over the item's physical capacity for division. This can appear in an express clause stating the delivery is not to be accepted in installments, or it can be inferred from how the contract is structured, such as a single price for a single lot rather than unit pricing that would make partial delivery sensible on its own terms.
What indivisibility changes for the parties
Once an obligation is indivisible, whether by nature or by the parties' agreement, a debtor generally cannot insist on performing, or a creditor on accepting, only part of what is owed unless the other side consents. A tender of partial delivery under a contract meant as a single whole can be refused, and the debtor's obligation is not considered complied with until the entirety has been delivered as agreed, consistent with what the parties intended when they struck their bargain.
Why the distinction matters for obligations with several debtors or creditors
The divisible-or-indivisible question matters most once more than one person owes, or is owed, under the same contract. A divisible obligation is generally presumed to be owed in proportionate shares, so each debtor answers only for a portion. An indivisible one is not: it cannot be broken into partial performances by one debtor toward one creditor, which is precisely why parties sometimes agree, as here, to treat a physically separable delivery as one indivisible whole. Being clear about that intent when the contract is drafted avoids a later dispute over whether partial delivery, or partial payment, was ever something either side had to accept.
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.
- Sps. Alexander and Julie Lam vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd, G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. No. 244247, November 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, et al. vs. The Hon. Commission on Elections/Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) etc., et al. vs. Commission on Electons etc./Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al./Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., et al. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201112 / G.R. No. 201121 / G.R. No. 201127 / G.R. No. 201413, October 23, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →