Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code gives the aggrieved party in a lease a choice: rescind the contract and claim damages, or claim damages only and let the lease continue. So a tenant hurt by the landlord's breach can sue for the loss while keeping the lease alive, rather than being forced to move out.
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 tenant has a choice of remedies
When a landlord fails to do what the law requires of a lessor, the tenant is not trapped in an all-or-nothing position. The article says that where the lessor or lessee does not comply with their statutory obligations, 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 last clause is the direct answer: you may claim damages only, and keep the lease running. Ending the tenancy is one option, not a precondition. A tenant who wants to stay in the property can still hold the landlord financially responsible for the harm the breach caused.
What the landlord must do
The remedy is tied to specific duties. A lessor is obliged to deliver the property fit for its intended use, to make the necessary repairs during the lease to keep it suitable (unless the parties agreed otherwise), and — importantly — to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract. When the landlord falls short of any of these, the tenant is an aggrieved party who may invoke the choice of remedies. Common triggers are a landlord who refuses needed repairs or who disturbs the tenant's quiet enjoyment, leaving the tenant to absorb losses that the law says the landlord should answer for.
Why keeping the lease can be the better move
Choosing damages alone often makes practical sense. A tenant may have built a home or a business at the location, may face a tight rental market, or may simply not want the upheaval of moving because of the landlord's fault. The law respects that by letting the contract stand while still compensating the tenant. It also cuts both ways — the article applies to the aggrieved party generally, so a landlord facing a defaulting tenant has the same election. The point is that a breach does not automatically destroy the lease; the innocent side decides whether the relationship continues, with money making up the difference.
Proving and pricing the damage
Claiming damages while staying put still requires you to show a real breach and real loss. Document the landlord's failure — the requests for repairs, the conditions you endured, the interruption to your enjoyment of the property — and quantify what it cost you, whether in expenses, lost use, or business losses. Damages must be proven, not merely asserted, so a clear record is what turns a grievance into a recoverable claim. Continuing to pay rent under protest, and keeping the paper trail, usually strengthens your position. If the landlord's breach is causing ongoing loss, take your records to a lawyer to weigh whether to claim damages only or to rescind.
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 →