Short answer. No. Article 1169 says that in reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. So the other side cannot put you in delay while they themselves have not performed or stood ready to perform.
What the law says
In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.
Civil Code, Article 1169 — Delay (Mora). Read the full provision →
The general rule on delay
Delay — the law calls it mora — usually does not start on its own. As a rule, those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands fulfillment. In an ordinary one-sided obligation, then, your creditor must first demand performance before you are legally in delay and exposed to damages. There are exceptions: where the law or the contract expressly says no demand is needed, where the time fixed was a controlling motive, or where demand would be useless because performance is already beyond your power. But demand is the ordinary starting point.
The special rule for two-sided contracts
Reciprocal obligations follow a different logic, and it is the heart of your question. Article 1169 provides that in reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. Each party's duty is the counterpart of the other's. So a seller who has not delivered, and is not even ready to deliver, cannot credibly accuse the buyer of being late in paying. Neither side is in delay while both are still holding back — their positions offset each other.
When delay does begin against you
That balance does not last forever. The same provision continues: From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. Once the other party actually performs — or genuinely tenders performance and stands ready to comply in a proper manner — the shield disappears and the clock starts running against you. Readiness matters here. A party who is truly prepared to perform, and shows it, can place the other in delay even before the exchange is fully completed. Bare willingness is not enough; the readiness has to be real and proper.
What this rule does and does not give you
Understand the limits. This is a defence against being charged with delay and the damages, interest and added risk that delay carries — not a licence never to perform. It does not dissolve the contract or wipe out your own obligation; it only means no one is in default while performance is mutually withheld. Nor does it by itself decide who breached, or entitle you to rescind — other provisions govern those questions. And it applies to genuinely reciprocal duties arising from the same contract, not to unrelated debts you happen to owe the same person. Keep evidence of what each side did, and when.
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.
- Lara’s Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc, G.R. No. 225433, August 28, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation vs. Edward L. Lim and Hsieh Hsiu-Ping, G.R. No. 268143, August 12, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd., vs. United Coconut Planters Bank General Insurance Co., Inc, G.R. No. 189563, April 7, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Polo S. Panteleon vs. American Express International, Inc, G.R. No. 174269, August 25, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →