Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1653, where the return of the price is required, reduction shall be made in proportion to the time during which the lessee enjoyed the thing. So a refund on a defective leased item is not the full amount you paid — it is cut down to reflect the period you actually had the use of it.
What the law says
In the cases where the return of the price is required, reduction shall be made in proportion to the time during which the lessee enjoyed the thing.
Civil Code, Article 1653 — Warranty in Lease. Read the full provision →
Warranty rules from Sales apply to leases
Article 1653 begins by borrowing from the law on sales: The provisions governing warranty, contained in the Title on Sales, shall be applicable to the contract of lease. That means a lessor, like a seller, warrants the leased thing against hidden defects that make it unfit for its intended use. If the defect is serious enough, the tenant may have the lease undone and recover what was paid. The article then adds the special adjustment that answers your question — it tells you how much comes back once a return of the price is in order, recognising that a lease is paid for the use of a thing over time.
Why the refund is proportional
The reason for the cut is straightforward. A lease is not a purchase of the object; it is payment for its use over a period. If you actually used the thing for part of the term before the defect justified a refund, you received real benefit for that stretch. Returning the entire price would give you free use for the time you already enjoyed. So the article requires that reduction shall be made in proportion to the time during which the lessee enjoyed the thing. The refund reflects only the portion of the term you were deprived of, keeping the settlement fair to both landlord and tenant.
How the reduction is worked out
In practice you compare the time you actually enjoyed the thing against the full period the price covered. The landlord keeps the share matching the use you had, and returns the share matching the use you lost. For example, if the price covered a set term and the defect cut short your enjoyment partway through, the refund tracks the unused remainder rather than the whole. The article states the principle — proportion to time enjoyed — rather than a rigid formula, so the exact split depends on the facts: when the defect appeared, when enjoyment truly stopped, and what the price was meant to cover.
What the rule does not do
This proportional reduction governs the return of the price. It does not, by itself, cap other remedies. If the landlord knew of the hidden defect and hid it, the tenant may also claim damages for losses the defect caused, beyond the refunded rent. Nor does the rule apply where no return of the price is called for — for instance, where the defect was patent, or the tenant accepted the thing knowing its condition, or the parties validly agreed to waive the warranty. Where a refund is genuinely due, though, expect it to be trimmed for the time you had the use of the thing.