Text of the provision
Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
(1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other's undertaking;
(2) When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, he cannot recover what he has given by reason of the contract, or ask for the fulfillment of what has been promised him. The other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has given without any obligation to comply his promise.
(1306)
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
Where the unlawful cause is not a crime: if both are at fault, neither recovers or can demand performance; if only one is at fault, he cannot recover, but the innocent party may recover what he gave without having to perform.
Related provisions
- Article 1411 — In Pari Delicto: Criminal Cause.
- Article 1413 — Recovery of Usurious Interest.
Cases citing this article
- Hiers of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al./Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al, G.R. No. 165748 / G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose Menchavez, et al. vs. Florentino Teves Jr, G.R. No. 153201, January 26, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Desiderio Ranara, Jr. vs. Zacarias De Los Angeles, Jr, G.R. No. 200765, August 8, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Oscar Constantino, et al. vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., rep. by Asuncion Laquindanum, G.R. No. 181508, October 2, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Potenciano Ramirez vs. Ma. Cecilia Ramirez, G.R. No. 165088, March 17, 2006 — 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.