Short answer. No. A sale staged only to get rid of your lease does not work. Article 1676 says that if the sale is fictitious, made to extinguish the lease, the supposed buyer cannot use the right to terminate it. And the law presumes the sale fictitious if it is still unrecorded when he demands that you leave.
What the law says
If the sale is fictitious, for the purpose of extinguishing the lease, the supposed vendee cannot make use of the right granted in the first paragraph of this article. The sale is presumed to be fictitious if at the time the supposed vendee demands the termination of the lease, the sale is not recorded in the Registry of Property.
Civil Code, Article 1676 — Buyer's Right to Terminate an Unrecorded Lease. Read the full provision →
The buyer's ordinary power to terminate
The article begins with a rule that can unsettle tenants: the purchaser of land under a lease that is not recorded in the Registry of Property may terminate that lease. An unrecorded lease is, in a sense, invisible to a new owner, so the law lets a genuine buyer end it. But this power is hedged. It does not apply where the sale itself stipulates otherwise, and it does not apply where the purchaser actually knew of the lease when he bought. Even where it does apply, a tenant of agricultural land may gather the harvest of the current year and seek indemnity from the seller for the damage the termination causes.
A fake sale gets nothing
The protection you are asking about is in the next lines. The article states that if the sale is fictitious, for the purpose of extinguishing the lease, the supposed vendee cannot make use of the right granted in the first paragraph of this article. A sham sale — one arranged not to genuinely transfer the property but only to conjure a new owner who can throw you out — is denied the very power it was invented to exploit. The law looks past the paperwork to the purpose. If the transfer is a pretence aimed at ending your lease, the pretend buyer inherits no right to terminate.
The presumption that helps you
Proving a sale is fake could be difficult, so the article supplies a presumption that shifts the ground in the tenant's favour. It provides that the sale is presumed to be fictitious if at the time the supposed vendee demands the termination of the lease, the sale is not recorded in the Registry of Property. So when a new buyer surfaces to eject you but has not registered his purchase, the law starts from the assumption that the sale is a sham. That presumption puts the burden on him to show the transaction was real, rather than on you to prove it was staged.
The boundaries of the rule
The article balances genuine buyers against sham ones; it does not shield every tenant in every case. A real, recorded purchase by a buyer who did not know of an unrecorded lease can still support termination, subordinate to any contrary stipulation in the sale. The presumption of fictitiousness is also just that — a starting point that can be overcome by proof of a true sale. And the provision governs a purchaser's power to end the lease; it does not decide separate questions such as the tenant's claims for damages or the harvest, which the article and related rules address on their own terms.
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.
- Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation, represented by its Chairman/President PhD in Education, Dr. Sabino M. Manglicmot vs. Marissa E. Castro, et al, G.R. No. 189061, August 6, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Felipe Uy vs. The Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136100, July 24, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →