Short answer. The obligation is extinguished. Article 1184 provides that when an obligation depends on some event happening at a determinate time, it ends as soon as the time runs out or as soon as it becomes indubitable that the event will never take place — whichever comes first.
What the law says
The condition that some event happen at a determinate time shall extinguish the obligation as soon as the time expires or if it has become indubitable that the event will not take place.
Civil Code, Article 1184 — Positive Condition. Read the full provision →
Two ways an obligation like this can end
Article 1184 covers an obligation that is conditioned on some event happening at a determinate time. It gives two separate triggers for the obligation to end: the arrival of the deadline itself, or the point at which it becomes clear beyond doubt that the event is not going to happen at all. Either one is enough on its own. The obligation does not need both the deadline to pass and the impossibility to be confirmed — whichever happens first extinguishes it.
'Indubitable' is a real threshold
The provision does not extinguish the obligation the moment the event merely looks unlikely. It requires that it have become indubitable that the event will not take place — meaning free of reasonable doubt, not just improbable or delayed. A condition that has become harder to fulfil, or that is taking longer than expected, has not necessarily become indubitably impossible. The statute is written to end the obligation only once that certainty is actually reached, not on a mere suspicion that it will not come to pass.
What extinguished actually means here
Once either trigger occurs, Article 1184 says the obligation is extinguished — it ends, rather than being merely suspended or postponed. This matters for an agreement built around that event: once the deadline has run, or once it is beyond doubt the event will not occur, the obligation tied to that condition is no longer owed. What happens to the rest of an agreement that contains other, unrelated obligations is a separate question the article does not address; it speaks only to the conditioned obligation itself.
Why this differs from just waiting it out
Article 1184 is not a rule about patience — it is a rule about certainty. A party is not required to treat the obligation as alive indefinitely just because the event has not technically become impossible. Once the determinate time set for the event has run its course, the obligation ends on that ground alone, regardless of whether anyone could say for certain the event would never have happened. The two triggers work independently precisely so that a party is not left waiting on an event that has simply overstayed its own deadline.
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.
- Planters Development Bank (Now China Bank Savings, Inc.) vs. Fatima D.G. Fuerte, G.R. No. 259965, October 7, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Orlando A. Rayos, et al. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 135528, July 14, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Privatization And Management Office vs. Firestone Ceramic, Inc, G.R. No. 214741, January 22, 2024 — 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 →