Short answer. Yes. Article 1786 of the Civil Code makes every partner a debtor of the partnership for whatever they promised to contribute. If you never delivered the capital you committed at formation, the partnership itself — not just your co-partners personally — can pursue you to make good on that promised contribution.
What the law says
Every partner is a debtor of the partnership for whatever he may have promised to contribute thereto.
Civil Code, Article 1786 — Partner as Debtor for His Contribution. Read the full provision →
A promised contribution is a debt, not a favor
Article 1786 treats your promise to contribute capital the same way the law treats any other unpaid obligation: every partner is a debtor of the partnership for whatever he may have promised to contribute thereto. It does not matter that you are one of the owners of the partnership rather than an outside creditor's target. The moment you agreed to put in a certain amount of cash, property, or industry, the partnership acquired a right to demand it, and your failure to deliver is a breach the partnership can enforce against you directly.
The same article covers more than just the shortfall
Article 1786 does not stop at the bare promise. Where a partner contributes a specific and determinate thing rather than cash, they are also bound for warranty in case of eviction, in the same way a seller answers to a buyer, and they are liable for the fruits of the property from the time it should have been delivered, without need of any demand. So a partner who delays contributing property already owes the partnership its fruits for the delay, on top of eventually delivering the thing itself.
What this means for you practically
If your partnership sues you for the unpaid capital, the starting point is simply what you agreed to contribute and by when, as recorded in your partnership agreement or articles. The statute does not require the partnership to prove any special damage first — the debt exists because you promised it. It is worth checking exactly what was actually stipulated, since your liability is measured against the specific contribution you committed to, not some general expectation of fairness among partners. Whether interest and damages run from the agreed date or from a later demand is the point most worth checking, because it is often the larger part of the claim.
What Article 1786 does not decide
It is worth separating this from the liabilities partners more often worry about. Article 1786 governs what you owe the partnership; it does not govern what the partnership's outside creditors may collect from you, which rests on different provisions entirely. Nor does it let you treat an unpaid contribution as quietly offset against profits owing to you, or convert the shortfall into a reduced share by default — the claim is for the contribution promised, and any adjustment of your interest in the firm is a separate matter for the partners to settle or for a court to decide. Where what you promised was money rather than a specific thing, the Civil Code attaches a further consequence to the delay, distinct from the fruits rule above. The practical point is that non-delivery is treated as an ordinary debt with ordinary consequences, not as an internal disagreement the partnership has no means to enforce.
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.
- Gold Line Tours, Inc. vs. Heirs of Maria Concepcion Lacsa, G.R. No. 159108, June 18, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →