Short answer. Yes. Article 1655 says that if the thing leased is partly destroyed by a fortuitous event, the lessee may choose between a proportional reduction of the rent and a rescission of the lease. So instead of ending the lease, you may elect to keep it and pay a rent reduced in proportion to what was lost.
What the law says
If the destruction is partial, the lessee may choose between a proportional reduction of the rent and a rescission of the lease.
Civil Code, Article 1655 — Destruction of the Thing Leased. Read the full provision →
Partial destruction gives you a choice
Article 1655 addresses what happens when the leased property is damaged by a fortuitous event — a fire, flood, earthquake or similar event that is nobody's fault. Where the damage is partial, the law hands the decision to you as tenant. The provision states that if the destruction is partial, the lessee may choose between a proportional reduction of the rent and a rescission of the lease. That is a genuine election: you are not forced out, and you are not locked into paying full rent for a unit you can now only partly use. The choice belongs to you, not the landlord.
How a proportional reduction works
Choosing a rent reduction keeps the lease alive on adjusted terms. The reduction is proportional — it tracks how much of the property's use you have lost, not an arbitrary discount that either side simply prefers. If part of a rented space is left unusable while the rest remains habitable, the rent should fall to reflect the portion you can still enjoy. This lets a tenant who wants to stay ride out the repairs while paying only for the value actually received. The landlord cannot insist on the full original rent for a unit that fortuitous damage has genuinely diminished.
Or you may rescind instead
The alternative is rescission — ending the lease altogether. You might prefer this if the damage, though technically partial, makes the unit unsuitable for your needs, or if you would rather not wait out repairs. Rescission here is a remedy the law expressly gives the tenant for partial destruction, so you are not in breach for invoking it. Contrast this with total loss: the same article provides that if the thing leased is totally destroyed by a fortuitous event, the lease is extinguished by operation of law, without either party needing to choose anything.
The limits of this rule
A few boundaries matter. First, Article 1655 speaks of destruction by a fortuitous event; damage caused by the landlord's fault, or by your own, is governed by other rules on liability. Second, the remedy responds to physical destruction that impairs use, not to mere inconvenience or ordinary wear and tear. Third, the reduction is proportional to the loss, so you cannot withhold rent entirely while continuing to occupy a unit that remains largely usable. Finally, the article gives the tenant the choice for partial destruction; it does not let the landlord unilaterally end the lease or refuse a fair reduction. Document the damage and its extent.
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.
- Bayview Hotel, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119337, June 17, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →