Introduction

In many reimbursement disputes—friends splitting expenses, employees seeking advances repaid, co-owners shouldering repairs, or one party paying another’s obligation—everything turns on a deceptively simple question:

Did the creditor make a valid demand, and can that demand be proven?

In Philippine civil law, a “demand” can matter for several reasons:

To place the other party in default (delay) so that interest and damages may begin to run;
To show good faith and that litigation was a last resort (often relevant to attorney’s fees or moral damages claims);
To interrupt prescription (stop the running of the limitation period)—but here the law is stricter;
To satisfy contractual or statutory pre-suit requirements (sometimes the contract requires a written demand).

This article explains, in a Philippine context, whether verbal demands and text/chat messages are valid and whether they are good proof of demand—especially for reimbursement claims.

1) What “Demand” Means in Civil Reimbursement Claims

A demand is a clear communication to the debtor/obligor that:

Payment/reimbursement is due, and
The creditor requires performance now (or by a specific date).

It is different from casual reminders, vague complaints, or mere follow-ups.

A demand may be:

Judicial (made through a court action/complaint); or
Extra-judicial (made outside court: letter, email, text, call, personal request).

Reimbursement settings where demand commonly appears

Reimbursement disputes often arise from:

Loan / cash advance (collection of sum of money);
Quasi-contracts (e.g., solutio indebiti—payment by mistake; negotiorum gestio—managing another’s affairs without authority);
Co-ownership (one co-owner paying necessary expenses);
Agency (agent advances funds and seeks reimbursement);
Employer-employee (liquidation/reimbursement of business expenses; or employer recovery of accountabilities);
Torts (one pays for damage and seeks recovery from the one responsible).

The exact legal theory affects what must be proven, but demand frequently affects default, interest, and damages.

2) Is Demand Always Required Before You Can Sue?

A) For filing a civil case: often not strictly required

In many ordinary civil actions for collection/reimbursement, you can file suit once the obligation is due—even without a prior demand—unless:

The contract requires a prior written demand; or
The obligation is of a type where default arises only upon demand (explained below); or
A special law/procedure requires a prior demand (context-specific).

That said, even when not strictly required to sue, demand can be crucial to strengthen your claim and maximize recoverable amounts (interest, damages, attorney’s fees).

B) For placing the debtor in default (delay): demand can be critical

Under the Civil Code rule on default, in many obligations the debtor is not considered in delay until demand is made—judicially or extra-judicially. Default often triggers:

Interest (including legal interest where applicable),
Damages, and
Potentially attorney’s fees (in some circumstances).

C) When demand is not necessary to put someone in default

Philippine civil law recognizes situations where default occurs without demand, such as when:

The obligation or the law expressly says no demand is needed;
The time of performance is a controlling motive (e.g., “pay on this exact date because it’s essential”);
Demand would be useless (e.g., performance has become impossible by the debtor’s act).

Even in these cases, a demand can still be useful as evidence of the creditor’s stance and of bad faith.

3) Verbal Demand: Is It Valid?

A) Validity (as an extra-judicial demand)

Yes—generally, a verbal demand can be a valid extra-judicial demand for purposes of placing a debtor in default, provided it is:

Clear (amount, basis, and requirement to pay),
Made to the proper person (debtor or authorized agent), and
Provable.

B) The practical problem: proof

The core weakness of verbal demand is not validity—it’s evidence.

In court, the party asserting demand bears the burden of proving it. Verbal demand is typically proven through:

Testimony of the creditor,
Testimony of witnesses who heard the demand,
Admissions by the debtor (messages acknowledging the demand, partial payments after demand, etc.),
Contemporaneous records (notes, call logs, calendar entries—helpful but not always strong).

If it becomes a “he said, she said” issue, courts often look for corroboration.

C) Bottom line on verbal demand

Legally possible;
Evidentially fragile unless supported by witnesses or admissions.

4) Text Messages / Chats / Email: Are They Valid Demands?

A) As a form of extra-judicial demand: generally yes

A text message, chat (e.g., Messenger/Viber/WhatsApp/Telegram), or email can be a valid extra-judicial demand, as long as it contains the essential elements of demand and is properly authenticated.

B) “Written” demand and prescription interruption: where texts become especially important

A crucial Civil Code concept: interruption of prescription (stopping the clock on the time limit to sue).

Philippine law recognizes interruption of prescription by, among others, a written extra-judicial demand.

This is where format matters:

A purely verbal demand may help prove default,
But to interrupt prescription, the law requires written extra-judicial demand.

Do electronic messages count as “written”?

Under Philippine policy recognizing electronic data messages and electronic documents, electronic writings can function as “written” communications if they are shown to be authentic and reliable. In practice, texts and chats can serve as written demands for interruption of prescription—but only if you can prove:

the message exists in the form presented, and
it was sent by you and received (or at least delivered to) the debtor.

Because prescription can decide the entire case, courts scrutinize this heavily.

5) What Makes a Text/Chat a “Demand” (Not Just a Reminder)

Courts look at substance. A good demand message typically includes:

Basis: why reimbursement is owed (e.g., “You asked me to pay X,” “I advanced funds for…”)
Amount: specific sum, or a clearly determinable amount
Requirement to pay: a clear call for reimbursement
Deadline: “within 7 days,” “on or before [date]”
Payment instructions: GCash/bank details (optional but helpful)
Consequence statement: “If unpaid, I will pursue legal remedies” (not required, but clarifies seriousness)

Weak examples (often argued as not a demand):

“Reminder about that thing…”
“When can you pay?” (can be a demand depending on context, but better to be explicit)
“Please don’t forget” without amount/basis

Strong examples:

“Please reimburse ₱12,500 for the hotel booking I paid on your behalf last Dec 10. Kindly pay on or before Jan 20 via GCash ####. If unpaid, I will pursue formal remedies.”

6) Are Texts/Chats Admissible in Evidence?

Yes—Philippine procedure recognizes electronic evidence, but admissibility depends on authentication and compliance with evidentiary rules.

A) The key concept: authentication

You must show the message is what you claim it is.

Common ways to authenticate:

Testimony of the sender (you) that you sent it;
Testimony of the recipient (if cooperative) acknowledging receipt;
Testimony of a witness who saw the conversation on the device;
Showing the conversation on the actual device in court when required/allowed;
Corroborating circumstances: the debtor replies in a way only they would; the number/account is known to be theirs; past communications; profile identifiers.

B) Screenshots vs. originals

Screenshots are common, but they are vulnerable to attack (“edited,” “fabricated,” “incomplete”).

Stronger practice includes:

Preserving the original device and the thread;
Exporting chat logs where the platform allows;
Printing messages with identifying details (names, numbers, timestamps) and backing them with testimony;
Keeping metadata or platform logs when feasible.

C) “Ephemeral” communications

Chats and SMS are often treated as ephemeral electronic communications. The rules typically require a showing of reliability and authenticity—usually through testimony and contextual proof.

7) Proof of Receipt: Does the Debtor Have to Actually Receive the Demand?

This depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

A) For default (delay)

Generally, you want to prove the demand was communicated to the debtor. If the debtor denies receipt, evidence like:

“Seen” indicators,
Reply messages,
Delivery reports,
Follow-up acknowledgments,

become important.

B) For interruption of prescription by written extra-judicial demand

Because prescription is strictly applied, it is safer to prove actual receipt (or at least a very credible showing of delivery/communication).

Best practice: send a formal written demand through channels that create strong proof (courier, registered mail, personal service with acknowledgment), and use texts/chats as supplemental proof.

8) Demand Letters vs. Text Demands: Why Lawyers Still Prefer Letters

Even if texts can be valid, demand letters remain the gold standard because they create:

A single complete narrative (facts, computation, legal basis),
Clear proof of sending and receipt (registered mail/courier/acknowledged personal service),
A better record for settlement and litigation,
Stronger support for claims of interest from a specific date and bad faith.

Texts are often best used as:

A quick initial demand,
A follow-up referencing the formal letter,
Evidence of the debtor’s replies/admissions.

9) Special Notes Depending on the Type of Reimbursement Claim

A) Loan / simple collection of money

Demand helps prove default and interest accrual if the obligation does not automatically place debtor in default.
Partial payments after text demands can operate as powerful admissions.

B) Payment by mistake (solutio indebiti)

Demand is often important to show the payer sought return and to establish bad faith if the recipient refuses to return despite notice.

C) Co-ownership / necessary expenses

Clear demand helps show you are seeking proportional reimbursement and helps define when refusal began.

D) Agency reimbursements / advances

Written trails (texts, emails, liquidation reports) matter a lot; demand helps establish when reimbursement was asked and refused.

E) Attorney’s fees and damages

Attorney’s fees are not automatic. Demand history can support arguments that:

You tried to settle,
The other party acted in bad faith by refusing a just claim.

10) How to Make a Text Demand Strong Enough to Stand in Court

If you want your text/chat to function as serious legal proof, do this:

State the amount and basis clearly
Attach supporting documents in the chat (receipts, invoices, transfers)
Give a deadline
Ask for a clear response: “Please confirm you received this demand and advise payment date.”
Preserve the evidence:
- Keep the device
- Keep the entire thread
- Avoid deleting messages
Capture context:
- Earlier messages showing agreement or request (“Please pay muna…”)
- Proof the account/number belongs to the debtor
Escalate to a formal letter if unpaid:
- Reference the earlier messages
- Send via a method with strong proof of receipt

11) Practical Recommendations (What Usually Works Best)

A reliable escalation ladder in the Philippines often looks like this:

Initial text/chat demand (quick, clear, documented)
Second message summarizing the prior demand + deadline
Formal written demand letter (with computation and attachments)
If needed, barangay conciliation (where required by the Katarungang Pambarangay rules for certain disputes between residents of the same city/municipality, subject to exceptions)
Civil action (small claims if within thresholds and appropriate; otherwise regular civil case)

Texts can be part of a strong record, but the formal letter (and proper pre-filing steps where applicable) reduces technical fights and focuses the case on the real issue: whether reimbursement is owed.

12) Clear Answers to the Main Question

Are verbal demands valid?

Yes, generally valid as extra-judicial demand, especially to establish default—but often hard to prove without witnesses or admissions.

Are text/chat messages valid proof of demand?

Yes, they can be—if they clearly communicate the demand and are properly authenticated as evidence.

Are texts “written demands” for purposes like interrupting prescription?

They can function as written demands under Philippine recognition of electronic documents—but you must prove authenticity and (ideally) receipt, because prescription issues are commonly contested and strictly applied.

13) Sample Text Demand Template (Philippine-Style)

You can adapt this:

Hi [Name]. This is to formally demand reimbursement of ₱[amount] for [what you paid/advanced] on [date] (receipt attached). Kindly pay on or before [date] via [GCash/bank details]. Please confirm receipt of this demand and your payment schedule. If unpaid after the deadline, I will pursue formal remedies to recover the amount.

Closing Reminder

Whether verbal or by text, a demand is only as strong as its clarity and proof. In Philippine disputes, the safest position is:

Use texts/chats to create immediate documentation and admissions, then
Back it up with a formal written demand with reliable proof of service—especially when prescription, interest, or bad faith damages may be at stake.

If you want, paste your draft demand message (with personal details removed), and I’ll rewrite it to be tighter, clearer, and more litigation-ready.