Short answer. Yes. Article 1561 of the Civil Code covers both defects that make the item unfit for its intended use and those that significantly diminish its fitness. If the defect is serious enough that you would not have bought the item — or would have paid less — the warranty applies.
What the law says
should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it
Civil Code, Article 1561 — Warranty Against Hidden Defects. Read the full provision →
Total uselessness is not required
Article 1561 of the Civil Code makes a seller responsible for hidden defects in two distinct situations: first, when the defect renders the item unfit for the use for which it is intended; and second — and this is what applies to you — when the defect diminishes its fitness to such an extent that you would not have bought it at all, or would have paid a lower price, had you known. You do not need to show that the item is completely worthless. A defect that significantly degrades performance, safety, or utility is enough.
The test: would you have bought it, or paid less?
The standard in Article 1561 is subjective in an objective sense: would a reasonable buyer in your position, knowing about the defect, have walked away from the deal or insisted on a lower price? If the answer is yes — and in your case, a defect that greatly reduces fitness almost always qualifies — the warranty is triggered. The seller is responsible even if the defect falls short of making the item completely useless. What matters is whether the defect materially affected your decision to buy and at what price.
What the warranty does not cover
Article 1561 excepts two categories from the warranty. First, patent defects — those that are visible or would be apparent to a normal buyer on inspection — are not covered. The warranty protects you from what you could not reasonably discover. Second, defects that are not visible but which an expert in your particular trade or profession should have caught are also excluded. If your professional background means you should have identified the problem, the seller escapes liability. For ordinary buyers without special expertise, this exception rarely applies.
Your remedies under the warranty
When the warranty applies, you generally have a choice between withdrawing from the contract — returning the item and recovering the price — or keeping the item and claiming a reduction in the price proportional to the defect. The severity of the defect and its impact on the item's use typically guides which remedy is more appropriate. If the defect also caused you losses beyond the price paid, damages may be recoverable depending on whether the seller knew about the defect. A lawyer can help you assess which remedy makes sense given the specific item, the defect, and the seller's conduct.
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.
- Spoues Luis G. Batalla and Salvacion Batalla vs. Prudential Bank, et al, G.R. No. 200676, March 25, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nutrimix Feeds Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 152219, October 25, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mazda Quezon Avenue vs. Alexander Caruncho, G.R. No. 232688, April 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Mario and Julia Gaspar vs. Hermino Angel E. Disini, Jr., Joesph Yu, doing, G.R. No. 239644, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →