Short answer. Yes to both options. Under Article 1205, when one of the alternative items is lost through the debtor's fault and you hold the right of choice, you may claim any of the surviving items, or the price of the one that was destroyed — plus a right to damages in either case.
What the law says
If the loss of one of the things occurs through the fault of the debtor, the creditor may claim any of those subsisting, or the price of that which, through the fault of the former, has disappeared, with a right to damages
Civil Code, Article 1205 — Loss When the Creditor Has the Choice. Read the full provision →
What an alternative obligation with creditor choice looks like
An alternative obligation means the debtor owes one of several possible prestations — not all of them. Article 1205 applies specifically where the creditor holds the right to pick which one is owed. That right of choice is valuable: before the creditor communicates their selection, the debtor cannot unilaterally decide which to deliver. But circumstances can intervene — including the debtor's own fault in destroying one of the alternatives. This is the situation Article 1205 addresses.
Your two choices when the debtor destroys one item
When one alternative is lost through the debtor's fault and others still exist, you have a genuine election. You can claim any of the surviving items — whichever you prefer from what remains. Or you can claim the price of the destroyed item — its monetary value at the time of loss. Article 1205 does not force you to take a surviving substitute if you would rather have the cash equivalent of what was ruined. The choice remains yours, consistent with the original structure of the obligation.
Damages on top of whichever option you choose
The statute adds with a right to damages to both options. This is significant: whether you elect a surviving item or the price of the destroyed one, you can also recover for the additional harm the debtor's fault caused you. If the destruction of the item delayed your business, caused you to breach a downstream contract, or required you to source replacements at a higher price, those consequential losses are recoverable separately. The price or the surviving item makes you whole on the object itself; damages address the surrounding harm.
How this compares to when the creditor does not hold the choice
The rules differ if the debtor normally holds the right of choice. Under those circumstances, if the debtor causes one alternative to be lost, the creditor's remedies are more constrained — the obligation generally continues as to the surviving alternatives. Article 1205's more creditor-favorable rule applies only because you, as creditor, were the one with the right to choose. That structural detail — who holds the election — determines which set of remedies Article 1205 assigns. If there is any ambiguity in your contract about who holds the right of choice, that question needs to be resolved first.
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.
- Romago, Inc. and Francisco Gonzalez vs. Associated Bank (Now United Overseas Bank Phils.) and Metallor Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 223450, February 22, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bank of the Philippine Islands vs Amador Domingo (deceased) substituted by his children, Joann Moya, et al, G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Chester Babst, vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 99398, January 26, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Elizalde Steel Consolidated, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 104625, January 26, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →