Short answer. Generally no. Article 1485 applies the Recto Law protections to a lease of personal property with an option to buy once the lessor has deprived the lessee of the possession or enjoyment of the thing. So a lessor who repossesses the appliance cannot simply take it back and still keep everything you paid.

What the law says

shall be applied to contracts purporting to be leases of personal property with option to buy, when the lessor has deprived the lessee of the possession or enjoyment of the thing

Civil Code, Article 1485 — Recto Law Extends to Leases With Option to Buy. Read the full provision →

Why a lease with option to buy is treated as a sale

Many rent-to-own deals are, in substance, installment sales wearing a lease costume — you pay 'rentals' that build toward ownership, with an option to buy at the end. Article 1485 refuses to let that label defeat the buyer's protections. It provides that the preceding article shall be applied to contracts purporting to be leases of personal property with option to buy, when the lessor has deprived the lessee of the possession or enjoyment of the thing. The trigger is repossession: once the lessor takes the appliance back, the arrangement is treated like the installment sale it really is.

The Recto Law remedies the lessor is pushed into

The preceding article referred to is the Recto Law, Article 1484, which governs installment sales of personal property. It gives the seller three remedies but forces a choice among them: exact fulfillment of the price, cancel the sale, or foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing. These are alternative, not cumulative. Critically, if the seller forecloses, he has no further action to recover any unpaid balance, and any agreement to the contrary is void. Article 1485 imports this whole scheme into your lease-with-option once you are deprived of the thing, so the lessor cannot both keep the appliance and chase you for the rest.

So can the lessor keep everything you paid?

This is where the protection bites. Because the deal is treated as a cancelled or foreclosed installment sale, the lessor cannot take back the appliance and also pocket every payment as though it were pure rent with nothing owed back. Stipulations that let the lessor forfeit all installments while recovering the thing are viewed with suspicion precisely because Article 1485 exists to stop the lease label from stripping you of Recto Law rights. The lessor must elect a single remedy and live with its consequences, rather than combining repossession with total forfeiture and a further claim for the balance.

What the article does not do

Article 1485 is not a free pass. It applies to leases with option to buy over personal (movable) property — appliances, vehicles, equipment — not to real estate, which other rules govern. It engages only when the lessor has actually deprived you of possession or enjoyment; if you keep the thing and simply want to stop paying, different questions arise. It also does not automatically hand back specific amounts; how much, if anything, is returned depends on the remedy chosen and what a court considers fair in the circumstances. And it does not erase a genuine default — it limits how the lessor may respond to it.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.