Short answer. The creditor pays, not you, provided the consignation was properly made. Article 1259 states that the expenses of consignation, when properly made, shall be charged against the creditor. Because the creditor's unjustified refusal to accept forced you to deposit the payment in court, the law makes him bear the cost.
What the law says
The expenses of consignation, when properly made, shall be charged against the creditor.
Civil Code, Article 1259 — Expenses of Consignation. Read the full provision →
The creditor bears the cost
Article 1259 gives a one-line answer: the expenses of consignation, when properly made, shall be charged against the creditor. Consignation is the act of depositing what you owe with the court when the creditor wrongfully refuses to accept your payment. Since it is the creditor's own refusal that put you to the trouble and expense of going to court, the law places that cost on him, not on you the debtor. You should not be out of pocket for insisting on paying what you owe. This covers the reasonable expenses of making the deposit, such as court and related charges tied to the consignation.
The words when properly made are a condition
Notice the qualifier: the creditor pays when properly made. This is not automatic. Consignation only shifts the cost, and only frees you from the debt, if you follow the legal requirements for it, which include first offering the payment to the creditor and giving the notices the law requires before and after depositing with the court. If the consignation is defective, the deposit may not count as valid payment at all, and you cannot assume the creditor will be charged its expenses. Doing it correctly is what earns you the protection of this article, so the steps matter as much as the deposit itself.
Why the law puts it on the creditor
The rule reflects fault. A debtor who is ready, willing, and able to pay should not suffer because the creditor unjustifiably turns the payment away. If the creditor had simply accepted, there would have been no court deposit and no expense to argue about. By charging the cost to the creditor, the law discourages creditors from refusing valid payment to harass a debtor or to keep a debt alive. It also confirms that a proper consignation, once made, extinguishes the obligation, so you are released from the debt while the creditor absorbs the incidental cost of his own refusal.
What it does not cover, and the caution
This article settles who bears the expenses; it does not, by itself, decide whether your consignation was proper, whether your tender was valid, or whether the creditor's refusal was truly unjustified. Those questions turn on the facts and on your compliance with the other rules on tender and consignation. Nor does it cover unrelated litigation costs beyond the consignation itself. So while the principle is clear, whether it applies in your case depends on how the deposit was carried out. This is general legal information, not advice on your particular dispute; the details of what you did will decide the outcome.
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.
- Ramon P. Aron vs. Francisco Realon, et al, G.R. No. 159156, January 31, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Juan Domino vs. COMELEC & Narciso Ra. Grafilo, Jr., et al, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →