Short answer. Yes. The seller answers for eviction even if the contract is silent, but the Civil Code expressly allows the buyer and seller to increase, diminish, or suppress this legal obligation by agreement. A clause enlarging the seller's liability for eviction beyond the statutory default is therefore valid and enforceable.
What the law says
The vendor shall answer for the eviction even though nothing has been said in the contract on the subject. The contracting parties, however, may increase, diminish, or suppress this legal obligation of the vendor.
Civil Code, Article 1548 — Warranty Against Eviction. Read the full provision →
What eviction means under the warranty
Article 1548 of the Civil Code defines eviction as happening whenever a final judgment, based on a right prior to the sale or on an act attributable to the seller, deprives the buyer of the whole or part of the thing purchased. The seller answers for this even if the contract never mentions eviction at all, because the warranty exists by operation of law as part of every sale, not because the parties wrote it in. This default protects a buyer who later discovers that someone else had a better right to the property all along.
The parties can dial the obligation up
The same article immediately gives the contracting parties control over that default obligation: they "may increase, diminish, or suppress this legal obligation of the vendor." Increasing it is just as valid as reducing or removing it. A clause that expands what the seller must answer for in case of eviction, for example by adding remedies beyond what the law would otherwise require, or by removing conditions that would normally limit the seller's exposure, is a lawful exercise of that same power the statute grants.
Why the law leaves this to agreement
The warranty against eviction protects the buyer's interest in actually keeping what was purchased, and the Code treats the statutory version as a floor the parties are free to build on, not a ceiling. Because eviction disputes can arise long after the sale closes, once someone else's superior claim to the property surfaces, buyers in higher-risk transactions often prefer a broader warranty spelled out explicitly, rather than relying only on the general default the law supplies when the contract says nothing.
What to check before relying on a broadened clause
Because an increased warranty is a matter of contract, its actual scope depends on how specifically the clause was drafted, including what triggers it, what the seller must do once eviction occurs, and what the buyer may recover. A vaguely worded clause claiming to increase the seller's liability may still leave real questions unanswered when an eviction claim eventually arises, so the value of enlarging the warranty depends heavily on precise drafting rather than the general power to do so under Article 1548 alone.
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.
- Pilipinas Makro, Inc. vs. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. and Lim Kim San, G.R. No. 196419, October 4, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Luciano Briones and Nelly Briones vs. Jose Macabagdal, Fe D. Macabagdal and Vergon Realty Investments Corporation, G.R. No. 150666, August 3, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173441, December 3, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Michael Uy & Bonita Uy vs. Eduardo Ariza, et al, G.R. No. 158370, August 17, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →