Short answer. No. Article 1179 of the Civil Code provides that an obligation with a resolutory condition is immediately demandable, without prejudice to the effects of the event if it happens. A resolutory condition does not delay the right to demand performance — it can only end the obligation if it materializes.
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. Every obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable, without prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event.
Civil Code, Article 1179 — Pure Obligations; Resolutory Conditions. Read the full provision →
Resolutory conditions do not delay performance
Article 1179 of the Civil Code draws a clear line between the two types of conditional obligations. First, it states that obligations not dependent on a future or uncertain event are demandable at once — these are pure obligations. Then it adds: Every obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable, without prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event. An obligation with a resolutory condition is immediately demandable. The resolutory event has not happened yet, and until it does, the obligation is live and can be enforced without waiting for anything.
What a resolutory condition does
A resolutory condition is an event that, if it occurs, will end an existing obligation. It is the opposite of a suspensive condition, which must occur before an obligation begins. Under a resolutory condition, the obligation is already in effect. The condition does not delay or postpone performance — it threatens to extinguish the obligation prospectively. As long as the condition has not yet occurred, the obligation continues and performance can be demanded. Only when the resolutory event actually takes place does the obligation come to an end and the parties must address the effects of that termination.
Without prejudice to the effects of the event
The phrase without prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event preserves what happens if the resolutory event does occur. If the event materializes, the obligation is extinguished for the future. Depending on the nature of the obligation, the parties may also need to address what happened during the period before the condition was fulfilled — returning what was received, unwinding transactions, or otherwise accounting for the period during which the obligation was in force. The immediate demandability of the obligation does not mean the resolutory event has no consequences; it simply means those consequences arise only if and when the event happens, not in anticipation of it.
Practical implications
If you are the creditor in an obligation that comes with a resolutory condition — for example, an obligation to pay rent that ends if the debtor marries, or an allowance that stops if the recipient moves abroad — you can demand performance right now. You do not have to wait and see whether the resolutory event happens. The debtor owes performance today. If the debtor tries to argue that they should not have to perform because the resolutory event might happen in the future, Article 1179 answers that argument: the obligation is immediately demandable, and a future event that has not yet occurred does not excuse present non-performance.
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 →