Short answer. Yes. Article 1556 of the Civil Code allows a buyer who loses a portion of what was sold through eviction to rescind the entire contract — if the evicted portion was so important that the buyer would not have purchased the rest without it. The buyer must return the remaining property without additional encumbrances.
What the law says
Should the vendee lose, by reason of the eviction, a part of the thing sold of such importance, in relation to the whole, that he would not have bought it without said part, he may demand the rescission of the contract; but with the obligation to return the thing without other encumbrances that those which it had when he acquired it.
Civil Code, Article 1556 — Partial Eviction. Read the full provision →
Partial eviction and the right to rescind
The ordinary remedy for eviction is recovery from the seller — a warranty claim for the loss. But Article 1556 gives the buyer a more drastic option when the part lost through eviction was central to the entire purchase. If the evicted portion was so important, in relation to the whole, that the buyer would not have bought the rest without it, the buyer may demand rescission of the entire sale — treating it as if the transaction never happened. This right replaces, rather than supplements, the ordinary eviction warranty claim.
The test: would you have bought the rest without the lost part?
The critical question under Article 1556 is factual: would the buyer have purchased the remaining portions of the property had they known, at the time of purchase, that they would not receive the evicted part? If the answer is no — if the lost portion was the essential reason for buying the whole — rescission is available. Evidence of what drew the buyer to the property, what the lost portion was used for, and whether the remaining portion has any practical value standing alone is all relevant to this analysis.
The buyer must return the property without added encumbrances
Rescission under Article 1556 is not a one-way right. The buyer who exercises it must return the thing without other encumbrances than those which it had when he acquired it. This means the buyer cannot impose new mortgages, liens, leases, or other burdens on the property during the time they held it and then simply hand it back in that encumbered state. The property must go back to the seller essentially as it came — additional encumbrances the buyer created during ownership must be cleared before return is possible.
Extension to jointly-sold properties
Article 1556 also covers a related scenario: two or more distinct things sold together in a single transaction, whether for a lump sum or separate prices. When it is clear that the buyer would not have purchased one without the other, losing one through eviction gives the buyer the same right to rescind the entire purchase. A buyer who purchased an adjacent lot and a house in a single deal, intending to operate them as a combined property, and who is evicted from the lot, can potentially rescind the entire purchase if the lot was the reason the house purchase made sense.
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.
- Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173441, December 3, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →