Short answer. Yes, if he knew about the defects. Article 754 ordinarily excuses a donor from warranting the property given, since the gift was gratuitous, but it makes an exception for bad faith: the donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case of bad faith on his part.
What the law says
The latter, on the other hand, is not obliged to warrant the things donated, save when the donation is onerous, in which case the donor shall be liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden. The donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case of bad faith on his part.
Civil Code, Article 754 — Warranty And Eviction In Donations. Read the full provision →
The general rule: donors do not warrant what they give
Article 754 starts from a position that makes sense for a gift: the latter, on the other hand, is not obliged to warrant the things donated. Because a donation is gratuitous, the donee received something for nothing in return, the law does not ordinarily hold the donor to the same warranty standard that a seller owes a buyer who paid for the property. If a purely gratuitous donation later turns out to have some defect the donor never knew about, the donor is not automatically on the hook simply because they gave the property away.
Bad faith changes the outcome completely
The article carves out a direct exception for exactly your situation. It states: the donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case of bad faith on his part. If your father actually knew about the hidden defects in the property and donated it to you anyway without disclosing them, that knowledge is what triggers his liability. The gratuitous nature of the donation does not shield a donor who is aware of a problem and stays silent about it while handing the property over.
The other exception: onerous donations
Article 754 also addresses a second situation worth knowing about, even though it does not appear to be yours: "save when the donation is onerous, in which case the donor shall be liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden." An onerous donation is one where the donee is required to give something or assume some burden in exchange. In that case, the donor's liability for eviction is tied to the value of that burden, a different basis from the bad-faith exception that applies to your situation.
What this means for your claim against your father
Since you say your father knew about the hidden defects at the time he made the donation, Article 754's bad-faith exception is what supports holding him liable despite the gift having cost you nothing. The key fact to establish is his actual knowledge of the defects at the time of the donation, since that knowledge is what the article treats as bad faith and what takes this situation out of the general rule that a donor owes no warranty at all.