Text of the provision
Art. 1484. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of the following remedies:
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;
(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments;
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been constituted, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void. (1454-A-a)
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
In a sale of personal property payable in installments, the seller may (1) exact fulfillment, (2) cancel if the buyer defaults on two or more installments, or (3) foreclose the chattel mortgage — and if he forecloses, he has no further action for the deficiency. Contrary stipulations are void. This is the Recto Law, a core consumer-protection rule; the remedies are alternative, not cumulative.
Related provisions
- Article 1483 — Form of a Sale.
- Article 1485 — Recto Law Extends to Leases With Option to Buy.
Cases citing this article
- PCI Leasing & Finance InC. vs. Giraffe-X Creative Imaging, Inc, G.R. No. 142618, July 12, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Alfredo and Brigida Rosario vs. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc, G.R. No. 139233, November 11, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Daniel L. Borbon II, et al. vs. Servicewide Specialists, et al, G.R. No. 106418, July 11, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equitable Savings Bank vs. Rosalinda C. Palces, G.R. No. 214752, March 9, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- PCI Leasing & Finance Inc vs. Sps. George M. Dai etc, G.R. No. 148980, September 21, 2007 — 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.