Text of the provision
Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:
(1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment;
(2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due;
(3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
(4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
(1176a)
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
If the creditor refuses a valid tender of payment without just cause, the debtor is released by consignation (depositing the thing with the court). Consignation alone, without prior tender, suffices when the creditor is absent/unknown, incapacitated, refuses a receipt, when several claim the credit, or when the title is lost.
Related provisions
- Article 1255 — Payment by Cession.
- Article 1257 — Prior Notice of Consignation.
Cases citing this article
- Raquel Estipona (Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) and Sps. Alberto Co and Lulu Co Vs, G.R. No. 207407, September 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edita A. De Leon, Lara Bianca L. Sarte and Renzo Edgar L. Sarte Vs, G.R. No. 243733, January 12, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank vs. Lilibeth S. Chan, G.R. No. 206037, March 13, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bonifacio Dana vs. Spouses Gregorio Serrano and Adelaida Reyes, G.R. No. 195072, August 1, 2016 — 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.