Short answer. Neither of you, unless the contract says otherwise. Article 1196 presumes a designated period was established for the benefit of both creditor and debtor. So the lender cannot demand payment before the date, and you cannot force him to accept it early — unless the tenor or circumstances show the period favours one side.

What the law says

Whenever in an obligation a period is designated, it is presumed to have been established for the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor, unless from the tenor of the same or other circumstances it should appear that the period has been established in favor of one or of the other.

Civil Code, Article 1196 — Period Presumed for Both Parties. Read the full provision →

The presumption, and what it protects

Article 1196 provides that Whenever in an obligation a period is designated, it is presumed to have been established for the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor, unless from the tenor of the same or other circumstances it should appear that the period has been established in favor of one or of the other. The debtor's interest in a period is obvious — time to pay. The creditor's is less so, and it is usually the interest: a lender who priced a two-year loan expected two years of return, and early repayment takes that away.

When the presumption gives way

The presumption is rebuttable from the tenor of the agreement or the circumstances. Wording like payable on or before a date, or a clause expressly allowing prepayment without penalty, shows the period was for the debtor — he may pay whenever he likes. A clause imposing a pre-termination charge shows the opposite: the creditor's interest in the full term is being priced, and you may still prepay but must pay for the privilege. Read the whole document, including the pre-termination and acceleration clauses, before assuming either side can move the date unilaterally.

The creditor's exception

There is one route by which a lender reaches the money early without your consent. Article 1198 makes the debtor lose every right to make use of the period in five situations: insolvency after the obligation was contracted, unless he gives security; failure to furnish the securities promised; impairment or disappearance of those securities without replacing them; violation of an undertaking in consideration of which the creditor agreed to the period; and an attempt to abscond. Note what they have in common — each is about the debtor's own conduct or solvency, not about the lender changing his mind.

If you want to pay early

Ask in writing, and ask for the figure. A lender who agrees will normally quote a pre-termination amount; get that quotation, note what it includes, and pay against a receipt saying the loan is closed. If he refuses and the contract gives you no right to prepay, he is within Article 1196 and you cannot compel him — Article 1244 makes the point from the other side, that a creditor cannot be made to receive something different from what is due. Where a lender is instead demanding payment before the date, ask which ground under Article 1198 he says applies.

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.

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.