Short answer. No. Article 1501 recognizes that where the usual methods of delivery do not fit, as with a sold credit or right, the buyer's actual exercise of that right, done with the seller's consent, itself counts as legal delivery, even without a notarized deed or any physical handover of paper.
What the law says
the use by the vendee of his rights, with the vendor's consent, shall be understood as a delivery
Civil Code, Article 1501 — Delivery of Incorporeal Property. Read the full provision →
Incorporeal property needs its own delivery rule
A credit, a right of way, or a share of stock has no physical body to hand over, so the ordinary idea of physically passing an object from seller to buyer does not fit. Article 1501 supplies substitute methods that count as delivery for this kind of property, first by cross-referencing the public-instrument rule, then by adding two further fallback options for cases that rule does not reach, so the buyer is never left without a way to prove delivery happened.
Two proxies the article allows
Where the public-instrument rule does not apply, delivery happens either by placing the titles or documents evidencing the right in the buyer's possession, or by the buyer actually using or exercising that right, with the seller's consent, when there is no separate document to hand over or handing one over is impractical given the nature of the right involved. Either proxy is treated as legally equivalent to physical delivery of a tangible thing. This substitute delivery does not apply to real property sales, which still require a public instrument or actual physical possession under Article 1498, nor does it dispense with any registration required by other laws.
What using the right with consent looks like
A buyer of an assigned receivable who starts collecting directly from the debtor, with the seller's knowledge and consent, has effectively received delivery of that credit. The same logic applies to a buyer of an easement who begins openly exercising it with the seller's acquiescence, even though nothing was physically handed over between the two of them at any point in the transaction. This rule binds both parties to the sale; it does not bind the debtor or third parties, who may still require separate notice of the assignment before they are obligated to pay the new creditor directly.
Why the seller's consent matters
Consent is what separates a lawful exercise of a transferred right from mere unauthorized interference with someone else's property. Without the seller's consent, a buyer's attempt to use the right would not establish that delivery took place, and the seller could still treat the right as undelivered and the risk of loss as still resting on the seller's own side of the ledger. If the seller later denies giving consent or disputes that delivery occurred, the buyer bears the burden of proving the seller's acquiescence, since without that proof the exercise of the right looks like unauthorized interference rather than completed delivery.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1501 — Delivery of Incorporeal Property
- Civil Code, Article 1498 — Constructive Delivery by Public Instrument