Short answer. Article 2139 does not restate separate rules for antichresis. Instead it incorporates by reference the last paragraph of Article 2085 and Articles 2089 to 2091, provisions written for pledge and mortgage, including the rule that a security cannot be divided among heirs even though the underlying debt can be.

What the law says

The last paragraph of article 2085, and articles 2089 to 2091 are applicable to this contract.

Civil Code, Article 2139 — Common Provisions Applied. Read the full provision →

Why the Code borrows rules instead of restating them

Antichresis, pledge, and mortgage are three different ways of using property as security for a debt, and the Code deliberately avoids writing out the same background rules three times. Article 2139 is a cross-reference: it tells the reader that the last paragraph of Article 2085 and Articles 2089 through 2091, all originally written in the chapter on pledge, extend to antichresis as well. This drafting choice keeps the Code shorter and keeps the underlying principles consistent across all three security arrangements. Article 2090 in particular is where the indivisibility rule actually appears; Article 2139 pulls it in by reference rather than repeating it, which is why a reader trying to understand antichresis in isolation, without also opening the pledge provisions, will miss half of the applicable rule.

What those borrowed rules cover

The incorporated provisions address matters such as who may validly pledge or accept property as security, what happens when the secured obligation is only partly paid, and the rule that the security remains whole and indivisible even after the debtor's death, so that an heir who pays a share of the debt cannot demand a proportional release of the property held under antichresis until the entire obligation is satisfied.

Why this matters for someone holding land under antichresis

In an antichresis arrangement, a creditor holds and enjoys the fruits of a debtor's property, applying them first to interest and then to the principal, instead of the debtor making cash payments. Because Article 2139 pulls in the indivisibility rule, a partial payment does not entitle the debtor to reclaim part of the property or reduce the creditor's possession proportionally; the arrangement continues over the whole property until the debt is fully paid. That is also why a debtor cannot negotiate a partial return of the property simply because a substantial portion of the debt has already been paid off; indivisibility means the creditor's possession is tied to the full obligation, not to a percentage of it, until the debt is completely settled.

Where antichresis fits among the Code's security contracts

Antichresis sits in the same title as pledge and mortgage because all three let a debtor offer property as security without transferring ownership outright. Article 2139 closes the shared-rules question for antichresis specifically, confirming that a person evaluating this kind of arrangement needs to read it together with the pledge provisions it borrows from, not in isolation. Reading Article 2139 together with the pledge chapter it borrows from is therefore not optional background — it is the only place the operative rule on partial payment and indivisibility actually lives.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.