Short answer. Yes. Article 1357 of the Civil Code provides that once a contract has been perfected, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe the form required by law. If the law requires a public document for the sale of land, the buyer may compel you to execute it.
What the law says
If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
Civil Code, Article 1357 — Right to Compel Execution of Form. Read the full provision →
The right to compel the proper form
Article 1357 of the Civil Code provides: If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. The key word is compel — this is an enforceable right, not merely a request. Once the sale of land was agreed on and the contract was perfected, both the buyer and the seller can demand that the other party comply with whatever form the law requires. A buyer who wants the contract embodied in a public document has the right to insist on it, and the seller cannot simply refuse.
The contract is already binding before the public document
Article 1357 operates on the premise that the contract is already perfected and binding. The right to compel the form is a right that arises once the contract has been perfected — meaning it already exists as a valid, enforceable agreement. The form requirement does not affect the validity of the contract between the parties. What the public document does is add solemnity, make the agreement more easily provable, and allow registration, which is what gives it effect against third parties. The private agreement you already signed is valid and binding between you and the buyer — the public document is an additional formality that either of you can compel.
The right can be exercised together with the contract action
Article 1357 also specifies that this right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract. This means the buyer does not have to file separate legal actions — one to enforce the contract and another to compel the form. Both can be pursued in the same proceeding. If the buyer files suit to compel delivery of the land, the demand that you execute a notarial deed of sale can be included in the same action. Conversely, if you refuse to execute the public document and the buyer sues, the court can order both: that the contract be honored and that the required form be observed.
What this means if you refuse
If you refuse to execute the public document, you are not simply declining a courtesy — you are refusing to comply with a right the buyer holds under the Civil Code. The buyer may seek a court order requiring you to sign. If a court order is obtained and you still refuse, the court may authorize the execution of the document in your name. The law does not allow the form requirement to be frustrated by one party's unwillingness to cooperate. For the buyer, compelling the form is important not only for practical reasons of proof but also for registration purposes, which determines priority of rights against third persons.
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.
- Spouses Feliciana and Angel Cesa vs. Spouses Elisa Montano Brucelas and David Brucelas, G.R. No. 255564, March 5, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Antonio Lopez vs. Spouses Felix and Marita Empaynado, G.R. No. 196517, November 11, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. Hermana Realty, Inc, G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Felipa Binasoy Tamayao and the Heirs of Rogelio Tamayao represented by Felipa Binasoy Tamayao, G.R. No. 244232, November 3, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →