Short answer. Only in one narrow case. Where the seller of immovable property has reasonable grounds to fear losing both the land and the price, he may immediately sue for rescission. Where no such grounds exist, he must fall back on the ordinary rule for reciprocal obligations and prove an actual breach.
What the law says
Should the vendor have reasonable grounds to fear the loss of immovable property sold and its price, he may immediately sue for the rescission of the sale. Should such ground not exist, the provisions of article 1191 shall be observed.
Civil Code, Article 1591 — Seller's Rescission for Fear of Loss. Read the full provision →
The danger the rule is designed for
Picture a seller who has transferred land but has not yet been paid in full, and who then learns the buyer is dissipating or encumbering the property, letting it go to a foreclosure sale, or otherwise putting it beyond reach. If the seller had to wait for the payment date to pass and then litigate, he could end up with neither the land nor the money. This provision lets him move first. The wording is precise about the double exposure — the fear must be of losing the immovable property sold and its price. A seller who is confident he can recover the land, or who is merely nervous about being paid late, is not in the situation the article addresses.
"Reasonable grounds" means facts, not anxiety
The right depends on grounds a court will accept as reasonable. That means concrete developments — a mortgage or sale of the property to a third person, attachment or levy, the buyer's insolvency, acts stripping the land of value. A seller's private conviction that the buyer looks unreliable does not qualify, and neither does the buyer simply having missed one instalment while the property stays intact. Because the remedy is immediate, the evidence is what carries it. Gather the documents that show what is happening to the property itself: the annotations on the title, the notices, the registry records. It is the threat to the property, not the seller's assessment of the buyer's character, that the court will be examining.
When the danger is absent, the ordinary rule applies
The article ends by sending you to the general rule on reciprocal obligations, and that is the position most unpaid sellers are actually in. There, the power to rescind is implied whenever one party does not comply with what is incumbent on him, and the injured party "may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case." So the unpaid seller ordinarily has a choice: sue to collect the price, or sue to undo the sale — with damages available either way. The court decrees rescission unless there is just cause to fix a period instead, meaning the buyer may still be given time. And rights of third persons who already acquired the property are preserved.
What this does not give you
It is not a right to cancel by letter. The provision says the seller may sue for rescission; the cancellation comes from the court, not from the seller's own declaration, and a seller who simply announces the sale is off and resells the land is inviting a claim from the first buyer. It also does not apply to movable goods, which have their own rule. And it does not defeat someone who bought the property from your buyer in good faith and registered the purchase. Because the remedy turns entirely on what has already happened to the title and how fast, a seller who suspects the property is being put out of reach should have the title checked and the position reviewed by counsel without waiting.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1591 — Seller's Rescission for Fear of Loss
- Civil Code, Article 1191 — Rescission of Reciprocal Obligations