Text of the provision
Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist:
(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or
(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or
(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.
(1100a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
A debtor incurs delay (mora) only from the time the creditor demands performance, judicially or extrajudicially. Demand is unnecessary when the law or obligation so declares, when time was a controlling motive, or when demand would be useless. In reciprocal obligations, neither is in delay until the other performs or is ready to — and delay begins for one the moment the other performs.
Related provisions
- Article 1168 — Obligations Not to Do.
- Article 1170 — Liability for Fraud, Negligence, Delay.
Cases citing this article
- Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation vs. Edward L. Lim and Hsieh Hsiu-Ping, G.R. No. 268143, August 12, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc, G.R. No. 225433, September 20, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Dr. Jose M. Tiongco, G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Wilfredo A. Ruiz vs. AAA, G.R. No. 231619, November 15, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. vs. Western Guaranty Corp, G.R. No. 220613, November 11, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.