I. The Place of Article 1158 in the Law of Obligations

Philippine private law treats obligations as the backbone of enforceable duties in civil life—paying debts, delivering property, rendering services, respecting rights, and repairing harm. The Civil Code opens the topic with a definition and then immediately answers a practical question:

Where do obligations come from?

The Civil Code’s framework is:

Article 1156 defines an obligation as a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.
Article 1157 lists the sources of obligations.
Article 1158 explains the first source: law.

This matters because the source determines:

whether an obligation exists at all,
what exactly is owed,
the defenses available,
the remedies and damages,
and sometimes the prescriptive period or standard of care.

II. Text and Core Meaning of Article 1158

Civil Code, Article 1158:

Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book.

A. “Obligations derived from law are not presumed”

This is the article’s headline rule. It means:

Courts and litigants cannot invent a legal duty and call it an “obligation from law” unless the duty is clearly imposed by a provision of the Civil Code or a special law.
Any claim that “the law requires you to do X” must point to an actual legal basis—a statute, code provision, or a rule with the force of law that expressly creates the duty.

In practice, Article 1158 functions as a guardrail against implied statutory obligations and over-expansive judicial creation of duties under the label “law.”

B. “Only those expressly determined… in this Code or in special laws”

An obligation “derived from law” is demandable only if it is:

Expressly created by the Civil Code (including related codal provisions such as on property, family relations, succession, etc.), or
Expressly created by special laws (statutes outside the Civil Code, including commercial, labor, tax, social legislation, environmental laws, etc., where applicable).

This does not mean the law must always say “an obligation is hereby created.” It is enough that the law clearly imposes a duty in enforceable terms.

C. “Regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them”

When an obligation comes from a specific law, that law supplies:

the scope of duty,
conditions for enforceability,
exceptions,
penalties or civil consequences,
and the proper remedy.

You do not default immediately to general Civil Code principles if the special law already governs the matter.

D. “As to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book”

If the special law (or specific codal provision) creates the obligation but leaves gaps, the Civil Code’s general provisions on obligations and contracts fill in—such as:

rules on demand and delay (mora),
extinguishment (payment, novation, compensation, etc.),
damages and interest,
interpretation principles where relevant.

III. Article 1157’s Enumeration: The “Sources of Obligations” Map

Article 1157 lists five sources:

Law (Art. 1158)
Contracts (Art. 1159)
Quasi-contracts (Art. 1160; further governed by Arts. 2142–2175)
Acts or omissions punished by law (delicts/crimes; civil liability arising from crime)
Quasi-delicts (torts; Arts. 2176–2194)

A key skill in Philippine legal analysis is classifying the source correctly. Many disputes fail or succeed based on whether the plaintiff invoked the right source and the right elements.

IV. What Counts as “Law” Under Article 1158?

A. Civil Code provisions

Examples of legal obligations created by the Civil Code include (illustrative, not exhaustive):

duties of possessors in good/bad faith (e.g., return of fruits, reimbursements, deterioration rules),
obligations of bailees, depositaries, agents, and guardians under various titles,
obligations relating to co-ownership, easements, usufruct,
rules on support, family relations (now largely supplemented/superseded in parts by the Family Code, but still within “law” obligations).

B. Special laws

These are statutes outside the Civil Code that impose obligations, such as:

Family Code duties (support, parental authority consequences),
Labor laws (employer obligations),
Tax laws (payment obligations, withholding duties),
Consumer and product regulation laws (warranties, labeling duties, refund rights),
Environmental and local government laws (compliance duties, permits, abatement obligations),
Social legislation (SSS/PhilHealth/Pag-IBIG contribution duties, where applicable).

If a special law creates a duty, Article 1158 confirms it is a demandable obligation from law.

C. Implementing rules, regulations, and ordinances

A common question is whether administrative regulations or ordinances can create obligations “derived from law.”

In Philippine doctrine, rules and regulations may impose enforceable duties when they are issued pursuant to a valid statute and within delegated authority, giving them the force and effect of law. However:

the duty must still trace back to a valid legislative basis;
and if the regulation exceeds statutory authority, it cannot create a lawful “obligation derived from law.”

Ordinances, similarly, can impose duties within police power and delegated local authority, but must be valid and consistent with higher laws.

D. Jurisprudence is not itself a “source” under Article 1158

Court decisions interpret and apply law; they do not usually count as “special laws.” In argument, jurisprudence helps explain:

what a statute means,
how obligations are enforced,
what defenses apply.

But under Article 1158’s logic, you still anchor the obligation on an express legal provision, not merely on a court pronouncement.

V. Why “Not Presumed” Is a Big Deal

A. It prevents “statutory obligation by implication”

If the legislature wanted to impose a duty, it should say so. Article 1158 discourages arguments like:

“The law must have intended you to pay me,” or
“It’s implied in the spirit of the statute.”

Instead, the advocate must show:

a legal text creating the duty, and
that the facts fall within its coverage.

B. It protects liberty and property interests

Imposing a duty to pay or perform affects property rights. Article 1158 leans toward strictness: no one should be compelled to give/do unless a clear legal basis exists.

C. It guides pleadings and causes of action

A complaint based on “obligation from law” must identify:

the specific code article/special law provision,
the duty imposed,
the breach,
causation (if damages are sought),
and the relief supported by that law.

Vague invocation of “law” is often fatal.

VI. Distinguishing “Obligation from Law” From the Other Sources

Misclassification is common. Here’s how Article 1158 differs from the rest:

A. Law vs. Contract

Contract (Art. 1159): obligation arises from the parties’ agreement; enforceability depends on consent, object, cause, and validity rules.
Law (Art. 1158): obligation exists even without consent because the legal system imposes it.

Example pattern: If you promised to pay—contract. If the statute requires you to pay regardless of promise—law.

B. Law vs. Quasi-contract

Quasi-contract: obligation imposed to prevent unjust enrichment even without agreement (e.g., solutio indebiti, negotiorum gestio).
Law: duty exists because the statute directly says so, not merely because fairness demands it.

Quasi-contracts are still “obligations imposed by law” in a broad philosophical sense, but doctrinally they are a separate source under Article 1157 with their own rules and elements.

C. Law vs. Delict (crime) and Quasi-delict (tort)

Delict: civil liability flows from criminal act—restitution, reparation, indemnification—under the criminal law framework and civil law supplementation.
Quasi-delict: civil liability from fault/negligence without a pre-existing contractual relation, under Article 2176 and related provisions.

These sources revolve around wrongful conduct, whereas Article 1158 covers duties that exist even without wrongdoing (e.g., statutory support, statutory contributions, duties in property relations).

VII. How to Analyze a Problem Under Article 1158

A practical “checklist” approach:

Identify the asserted duty What exactly is being demanded—payment, delivery, compliance, abstention?
Locate the legal basis Which codal article or special law provision expressly imposes it?
Confirm coverage Do the facts fit the legal requirements (status, relationship, triggering event, conditions)?
Check exclusivity/special governance Does the special law provide its own remedy, procedure, defenses, or limitations?
Fill gaps with the Civil Code (Book IV) For issues not addressed—delay, damages, extinguishment, legal interest, etc.
Assess remedies Specific performance? injunction? damages? statutory penalties? rescission-type relief? administrative action?

VIII. Common Examples of Obligations “Derived from Law” in Philippine Context

Below are typical categories, phrased at a high level (because the exact rule always depends on the specific statute/codal provision invoked):

A. Family and status-based obligations

Support obligations among certain family members when legal conditions are met.
Duties arising from parental authority and custody arrangements.
Property relations and duties between spouses under governing family/property regimes.

These obligations exist regardless of whether the parties “agreed” to them.

B. Property and real rights obligations

Duties of possessors, builders, planters, and occupants in defined legal situations (good faith/bad faith rules).
Duties among co-owners, including contribution for necessary expenses in certain contexts.
Easement-related duties (dominant/servient estate responsibilities).

C. Statutory monetary obligations

Taxes, fees, contributions, and statutory deductions where the law imposes them.
Statutory withholding and remittance duties (often attaching to certain roles such as employers, payors, entities).

D. Regulatory compliance duties

Permit, licensing, safety, labeling, reporting, or abatement duties when the enabling statute authorizes enforceable regulations.

IX. Litigation Notes: Burden of Proof, Defenses, and Remedies

A. Burden of proof

The claimant must prove:

the existence of the law-based duty (by citing the correct provision), and
the facts triggering it.

B. Defenses

Common defenses include:

no express legal basis (invoking Article 1158’s “not presumed” rule),
non-coverage (facts don’t fit statutory conditions),
compliance or extinguishment (payment, set-off where allowed, prescription, etc.),
invalidity of the supposed legal basis (e.g., regulation/ordinance beyond authority).

C. Remedies

Remedies depend on the establishing law. Often include:

specific performance (compel compliance),
damages for breach when the law or Civil Code allows,
injunction to stop unlawful non-compliance or continuing breach (where appropriate),
statutory penalties or administrative enforcement mechanisms (if provided by special law).

X. Key Takeaways

Article 1158 is the Civil Code’s “anti-assumption” rule: if you claim an obligation comes from law, you must point to an express legal basis.
The creating law governs first; Civil Code rules supplement only for gaps.
Correctly distinguishing law from contract, quasi-contract, delict, and quasi-delict is essential because each source has different elements and defenses.
In Philippine practice, Article 1158 is both a sword (to enforce clear statutory duties) and a shield (to defeat invented or implied claims).

If you want, paste a fact pattern (e.g., “A did X, B demands Y”) and the analysis can be structured to identify the correct source(s) of obligation and the most viable cause of action under Philippine law.