Short answer. If the charter is silent, Article 47 sends the property to similar purposes for the benefit of whichever region, province, city, or municipality principally benefited from the institution while it existed. That fallback only kicks in when neither the law nor the charter specifies what happens to its assets on dissolution.
What the law says
Upon the dissolution of corporations, institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose mentioned in No. 2 of article 44, their property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them.
Civil Code, Article 47 — Disposition of Assets on Dissolution of a Public-Interest Corporation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If nothing has been specified on this point, the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region, province, city or municipality which during the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same.
Civil Code, Article 47 — Disposition of Assets on Dissolution of a Public-Interest Corporation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law
Civil Code, Article 44 — Who Are Juridical Persons. Read the full provision →
The primary rule: follow the law or the charter
Article 47 first looks to what already governs the institution: their property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them. If a specific law or the institution's own charter says what happens to its assets when it dissolves, that instruction controls, and the fallback rule discussed below never comes into play.
The fallback when the charter says nothing
Article 47's second sentence addresses exactly the situation in your question: if nothing has been specified on this point, the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region, province, city or municipality which during the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same. Two things have to be identified to apply this: what counts as a similar purpose to what the institution was doing, and which local government unit actually derived the principal benefit from its existence.
Which entities this rule covers
Article 47 applies specifically to the entities described in No. 2 of article 44 — corporations, institutions, and other entities created by law for a public interest or purpose. Article 44 itself lists these alongside the State and its political subdivisions, and separately from private corporations, partnerships, and associations, so this dissolution rule is tied to that particular public-interest category rather than to juridical persons generally.
Why the assets go to a place, not a person
The fallback rule directs the leftover property toward a region, province, city or municipality — a local government unit — rather than toward the institution's officers, members, or any private party. That structure reflects the public character of the institution itself: since it existed for a public interest or purpose in the first place, its assets on dissolution are meant to keep serving a similar public purpose in the place that benefited most from it, not to be distributed as if it were a private, profit-oriented entity winding up.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 47 — Disposition of Assets on Dissolution of a Public-Interest Corporation
- Civil Code, Article 44 — Who Are Juridical Persons