Short answer. You have a choice. When a tenant breaks the obligations of the lease, the aggrieved party may either ask the court to rescind the contract and also recover damages, or claim damages alone and let the lease continue. The Civil Code gives the injured party both options.
What the law says
the aggrieved party may ask for the rescission of the contract and indemnification for damages, or only the latter, allowing the contract to remain in force.
Civil Code, Article 1659 — Remedies for Breach of Lease. Read the full provision →
The law hands the injured party a choice
Article 1659 does not force a single remedy on a landlord whose tenant has broken the lease. It says the aggrieved party may ask for the rescission of the contract and indemnification for damages, or only the latter, allowing the contract to remain in force. That is two distinct paths. One ends the lease and seeks compensation for the harm the breach caused. The other keeps the lease alive and pursues only the damages. The choice belongs to the injured side, so a landlord is not obliged to terminate just because a breach occurred, nor limited to complaining without ending the relationship.
Which broken obligations count
The remedy is tied to the core duties the Civil Code places on each side of a lease. It applies where a party fails to comply with the obligations set out for the lessor in Article 1654 and for the lessee in Article 1657. For a tenant, those duties include paying the agreed rent, using the property as a careful person would, and only for the stipulated purpose. Notably, the article runs both ways: a tenant whose landlord fails, for instance, to keep the property fit for use or to maintain peaceful enjoyment can invoke the very same choice of remedies against the landlord.
Rescission goes through the court
Choosing rescission is not a self-executed cancellation. The article speaks of the aggrieved party asking for rescission, which points to a judicial process rather than the landlord simply declaring the lease dead and locking the tenant out. If rescission is granted, the lease is undone and the parties address the consequences of ending it early, alongside any damages awarded. Keeping the lease in force while claiming damages, by contrast, leaves the arrangement intact, useful when the landlord would rather hold the tenant to the contract and be compensated for the specific harm than lose the tenancy altogether.
Damages have to be proven
Whichever path you take, the compensation part is not automatic. Indemnification for damages must be backed by proof of actual loss flowing from the breach, such as unpaid rent, the cost of repairing misuse, or income lost while the property was tied up. A bare grievance without demonstrable harm will not translate into a money award. Because the choice between ending the lease and preserving it has real consequences for both sides, and because the damages depend on evidence, it is worth mapping out the breach, the loss and the goal with a lawyer before filing anything.
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.
- Pryce Corporation vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 157480, May 6, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leonardo Chua, et al. vs. Mutya B. Victorio, et al, G.R. No. 157568, May 18, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Teresita Dio vs. Rosalinda Melo Concepcion, G.R. No. 129493, September 25, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Socrates Sy and Cely Sy vs. Andok's Litson Corporation, G.R. No. 192108, November 21, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →