Short answer. Yes, in principle. Article 1245 says dation in payment, where you hand over property to satisfy a money debt, shall be governed by the law of sales. That casts you as seller and the creditor as buyer, so the seller's warranty against hidden defects can apply to the property you gave, exposing you to a claim.
What the law says
Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales
Civil Code, Article 1245 — Dation in Payment. Read the full provision →
Dation in payment borrows the rules of sale
Article 1245 is short but decisive: Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales. When you gave property to wipe out a money loan, the law does not treat it as a bare handover. It treats the transaction as if it were a sale, with your debt playing the part of the price and the property the thing sold. Because it is governed by the law of sales, the rights and duties of a seller and a buyer are imported into your settlement, warranties included.
That casts you as the seller
The consequence for you is direct. In a dation, the debtor who parts with the property stands in the seller's position, and the creditor who accepts it stands in the buyer's. Everything the law of sales asks of a seller can therefore be asked of you. A seller does not merely deliver an object; the seller answers for certain qualities of what is delivered. So when the property you handed over proves flawed, the creditor can invoke the protections a buyer would have, and chief among them is the warranty against hidden defects.
The warranty against hidden defects can apply
Under the law of sales, a seller warrants that the thing is free of serious hidden defects that make it unfit for its intended use or greatly reduce its value. Read into a dation, that warranty runs from you, the former debtor, to the creditor. If the property carried a concealed defect of that kind, the creditor may hold you answerable much as a disappointed buyer could hold a seller. Depending on the defect, the buyer's usual options apply: seeking to undo the transfer and return the property, or keeping it while demanding a price-style reduction. A dispute you thought closed can reopen.
Not every flaw counts
The warranty has real limits that work in your favour. It reaches defects that are hidden and serious, not those the creditor could have seen on ordinary inspection, and not trivial imperfections. A defect the creditor actually knew about, or that was obvious when it accepted the property, generally cannot become a warranty claim against you. The law of sales also sets time limits for bringing such a claim, so a creditor who sits on the problem may lose the right. And the defect ordinarily must have existed at the time of transfer, not one that arose later from the creditor's own use.
How exposure can be narrowed
Because a dation is governed by the law of sales, the same freedom to shape a sale applies. Parties can agree on the terms, including limiting or waiving the seller's warranties, so a clearly worded 'as is' clause in your dation agreement may reduce your exposure, subject to the limits the law places on waivers, especially where bad faith is shown. Without such a stipulation, the default warranties fill the gap. The lesson is practical: dacion en pago is not a clean, no-strings exit from a debt. What you give must be sound, or plainly documented as taken with its faults.
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.
- Ramona Ramos, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al, G.R. No. 178218, December 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Romeo Y. Tan, G.R. No. 217368, August 5, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Karen Nuñez Vito, et al. vs. Norma Moises-Palma, G.R. No. 224466, March 27, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs. Radstock Securities Limited and Philippine National Construction corporation, G.R. No. 178158 / G.R. No. 180428, December 4, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →