Short answer. Yes, where a superior right dispossessed you. Because your legacy is generic, the heir warrants it. Article 928 says the heir bound to deliver shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind, so he must make good the loss.
What the law says
The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind.
Civil Code, Article 928 — The Deliverer's Warranty. Read the full provision →
A generic legacy carries a warranty
The key to your situation is that the will left you a thing described only by its kind — a generic legacy — not a specific, identified object. For that type of legacy, Article 928 imposes a warranty on the person who must hand it over: the heir who is bound to deliver the legacy or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind. So the heir is not off the hook merely because something went wrong with the particular item delivered. Where the legacy is generic, he answers for eviction.
What 'eviction' means here
Eviction, in this sense, is not about a third person simply grabbing the thing by force. It refers to your being deprived of what you received because someone else turns out to have a superior legal right to it — a right that existed and defeats your claim. If a third party lawfully takes the item because it was truly theirs, you have been evicted from the legacy. Because your legacy was generic, that eviction triggers the heir's liability under Article 928: the reason a generic thing was chosen is that any thing of the kind will do, so the heir must supply one that actually holds up.
Why the heir must make it good
The logic is that a generic legacy promises you a thing of a certain kind, free of a defeating claim, not one particular object come what may. If the object first delivered is lost to a person with a better right, the underlying promise — a good thing of that kind — has not been satisfied. The heir bound to deliver therefore bears the risk and must answer for the eviction, which in practice means making the legacy good rather than leaving you with nothing. That is exactly what Article 928 secures for a legatee whose gift was described only by its kind.
The limits of this rule
This protection is tied to the generic nature of the gift. Where a will leaves a specific, identified thing instead, different rules govern what happens if that exact thing is lost or claimed by another, and the outcome can be very different. Article 928 also speaks to eviction — deprivation by a superior right — rather than to every misfortune that might befall the item. So the strength of your position depends on two things being true: that the legacy was indeed indicated only by its kind, and that what happened amounts to eviction by someone with a better right, not merely a dispute you can still win.