Short answer. No. Article 1488 carves expropriation out of the ordinary law on sales entirely. Because the government's taking of private property for public use is compulsory rather than a voluntary meeting of minds on price, it is governed by special expropriation laws and procedural rules, not by the Civil Code provisions on sale.
What the law says
The expropriation of property for public use is governed by special laws.
Civil Code, Article 1488 — Expropriation. Read the full provision →
Expropriation is not a sale
A sale requires consent from both a seller and a buyer over a thing and a price. Expropriation has no such consent on the landowner's side; the State exercises its power of eminent domain to take private property for public use whether or not the owner is willing to part with it, which is why Article 1488 removes it from the sales rules altogether and hands it to its own separate body of law instead. This rule binds every taking agency, whether a national government infrastructure project, a local government unit, or a government-owned corporation exercising delegated eminent domain, and it applies no matter how much the agency would prefer to negotiate a price the way an ordinary buyer might.
What law actually governs instead
Expropriation proceeds under special procedural rules and the specific statute authorizing the taking agency, whether a national government infrastructure project or a local government unit, which set out how the case is filed, when possession may be taken upon deposit, and how compensation is ultimately fixed, rather than under the Title on sales in this Code that governs an ordinary voluntary transaction between willing parties.
Just compensation replaces a negotiated price
Value in expropriation is fixed through court-appointed commissioners based on the fair market value of the property at the time of taking, not negotiated the way a sale price is. The owner cannot invoke a formula like pegging the price to an exchange or market rate the way a seller of grain or securities might; the compensation process follows its own distinct standards set by procedural rules and jurisprudence, not by ordinary bargaining between the parties.
Why the distinction matters to a landowner
Because expropriation is not a sale, an owner cannot invoke sales remedies such as rescission for an inadequate price or the double-sale priority rules against the expropriating authority. The owner's real protections come from the constitutional guarantees of due process and just compensation, which operate on their own terms outside the sales title of the Civil Code entirely, and are enforced through the expropriation case itself rather than through an ordinary sales dispute. If the government completes the taking but fails to pay the compensation fixed by the court, the landowner's remedy is a motion within that same expropriation case, or, after prolonged non-payment, an action to recover the property, not a sales-law claim for rescission or specific performance.