Can I cancel my lease and sue my landlord for damages if he breaches the contract?

Two remedies, and you pick

Article 1659 gives the aggrieved party in a lease an option, not a single fixed outcome. You may “ask for the rescission of the contract and indemnification for damages, or only the latter, allowing the contract to remain in force.” So if your landlord has failed to comply with the obligations the lease imposes, you can end the lease and claim damages together, or stay in the lease and claim damages alone. The choice of remedy is yours to make based on what actually serves you.

The breach has to trace back to specific lessor obligations

This remedy attaches to a landlord's failure to comply with the particular obligations the law sets for a lessor — the kind of things a lease is supposed to guarantee a tenant, such as maintaining the property in a condition fit for the use it was leased for and not disturbing the tenant's peaceful enjoyment of it. Article 1659 is not a general damages clause for any dispute between landlord and tenant; it responds specifically to the lessor not meeting those obligations.

Why staying in the lease can be the better option

Rescission is not always what a tenant wants, especially if the property is otherwise usable, if moving would be costly, or if the location matters more than the grievance. Because the statute lets you claim “only” damages while “allowing the contract to remain in force,” you can hold the landlord accountable financially for the breach without giving up the space itself. That flexibility is the point of drafting the remedy as an option rather than a single outcome.

What you will need to show

Either path starts from the same place: establishing that the landlord actually failed to meet an obligation the lease and the law impose, and that this failure caused you loss. Keep records of the specific obligation you say was breached, when and how the landlord fell short, and the damage that resulted — repair costs, lost use of the property, or other consequences. The remedy in Article 1659 turns on proving the breach, not on which of the two outcomes you ultimately choose.

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 →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1659 — Remedies for Breach of Lease