Can a buyer sue the seller if someone else later proves a better right to the property and evicts the buyer?

Eviction here has a technical meaning

The word does not mean what tenants mean by it. Under Article 1548, eviction shall take place whenever by a final judgment based on a right prior to the sale or an act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is deprived of the whole or of a part of the thing purchased. Three elements carry the load: a deprivation, effected by a final judgment, resting on a right that predates the sale. A neighbour merely asserting a claim, a squatter occupying the lot, or a case still under appeal is not yet eviction in this sense. A buyer put out by a court order that has become final is.

Prior right, or the vendor's own act

The right that defeats the buyer has to have existed before the sale: an earlier mortgage that was foreclosed, an earlier buyer with the better right, an heir whose share was never brought into the transaction. A claim arising after the buyer took over is the buyer's own misfortune and not the seller's warranty. The alternative trigger is an act imputable to the vendor, meaning the seller's own conduct, before or after the sale, that costs the buyer the property. What the buyer never has to establish is bad faith. This is not a fraud claim; the warranty attaches to the sale itself.

Partial loss counts, and the warranty can be cut down

The provision reaches deprivation of the whole or of a part, so losing a strip of land to a boundary judgment, or losing one lot out of several, falls inside it. And the closing sentence matters as much as the opening one: the contracting parties may increase, diminish, or suppress this legal obligation of the vendor. A clause waiving the warranty against eviction is therefore not boilerplate at all. It is the seller stripping out the buyer's principal protection, and it is the one clause worth reading twice before signing anything.

What to do while the case is running

If someone has sued you over property you bought, do not treat it as your fight alone. Notify the seller in writing, promptly, and keep proof that the notice arrived, because the seller's exposure under the warranty is bound up with having been given the chance to defend the sale they made. Keep the deed, the receipts, the title, and everything showing what you paid and what you have since spent on the property, since what a buyer can recover is measured against those figures. And read the deed now, before any judgment, for any clause diminishing or suppressing the warranty.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Pilipinas Makro, Inc. vs. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. and Lim Kim San, G.R. No. 196419, October 4, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Luciano Briones and Nelly Briones vs. Jose Macabagdal, Fe D. Macabagdal and Vergon Realty Investments Corporation, G.R. No. 150666, August 3, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173441, December 3, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Sps. Michael Uy & Bonita Uy vs. Eduardo Ariza, et al, G.R. No. 158370, August 17, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1547 — Implied Warranties (Title and Against Hidden Defects)
• Civil Code, Article 1555 — What the Buyer May Recover on Eviction