Short answer. Yes, in substance. Article 1165 provides that if the thing owed is indeterminate or generic, the creditor may ask that the obligation be complied with at the expense of the debtor. So you can have the goods supplied and make the seller shoulder the cost - though the cleanest route is to have this done through the proper legal process.
What the law says
If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask that the obligation be complied with at the expense of the debtor.
Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver. Read the full provision →
What the law says
in any manner contravene the tenor
Civil Code, Article 1170 — Liability for Fraud, Negligence, Delay. Read the full provision →
Generic goods can be obtained at the debtor's expense
Article 1165 draws a sharp line between a determinate thing — one specific, identified item — and generic goods. For generic goods, the article says plainly: If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask that the obligation be complied with at the expense of the debtor. The reason is practical. Generic goods can be had from anyone; the market is full of equivalents. So the law does not force you to chase this one seller forever. You may have the same kind and quantity of goods supplied elsewhere and look to the defaulting seller to bear the cost of doing so.
How this works in practice
The article speaks of the creditor asking that the obligation be complied with at the debtor's expense — it is a right you invoke, not simply self-help to exercise however you please. Ordinarily the sound course is to seek this through the proper legal process, so that the seller's liability for the added cost is established and enforceable. The difference you end up paying — buying replacement goods at a higher price than the contract fixed — is exactly the kind of loss the mechanism is meant to shift onto the seller who failed to deliver what he promised in the first place.
You can also claim damages
The remedy for expense is not your only one. The article grants it in addition to the right granted him by article 1170. Article 1170 makes those guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor of their obligation, liable for damages. So beyond covering the cost of sourcing the goods elsewhere, you may pursue the seller for other damages his breach caused you — losses that flow from the delay or the non-delivery itself. The two remedies work together: performance at his expense puts the goods in your hands, and damages compensate for the rest.
What this does not let you do
This right belongs to generic obligations. Where the seller owes a determinate, one-of-a-kind thing, the article's first rule applies instead — you may compel that specific delivery, but you cannot simply buy a substitute, because there is none. Nor does complying at the debtor's expense mean you may overspend and pass on any figure you like; the cost must be a reasonable one for equivalent goods. And it does not erase the seller's obligation without accounting — the point is to put you where performance would have, not to punish him beyond the loss and the added expense you actually incur.
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.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rebecca T. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation, G.R. No. 146594, June 10, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →