Short answer. Generally no. Article 1191 lets an injured party rescind a reciprocal obligation, but it says this is without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing. Under Article 1385, rescission cannot take place against third persons who did not act in bad faith; your remedy is damages against whoever caused the loss.

What the law says

This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.

Civil Code, Article 1191 — Rescission of Reciprocal Obligations. Read the full provision →

What the law says

Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith. In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss.

Civil Code, Article 1385 — Mutual Restitution; Limits. Read the full provision →

Your right to rescind, and its built-in limit

Article 1191 gives the injured party in a reciprocal contract a powerful remedy: when the other side does not comply with what is incumbent upon him, you may choose between fulfillment and rescission, with damages either way. But the same article draws a line that answers your question. It closes by providing that rescission is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. In other words, your power to unwind the deal stops where an innocent third person's acquired right begins.

Why the good-faith buyer is protected

Article 1385 spells out the protection. Rescission normally requires mutual restitution — returning the thing and the price. But the law adds a crucial exception: Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith. A buyer who purchased the property innocently, without knowledge of your right to rescind, is exactly such a third person. The thing cannot be pulled back from his hands merely because your contract with the seller has failed. Good faith shields the acquisition.

What you can recover instead

Being blocked from rescinding against the buyer does not leave you empty-handed. Article 1385 continues: In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss. Your claim shifts from the thing to money, and from the innocent buyer to the party responsible — typically the person who wrongly sold or transferred the property away. So you pursue that party for damages rather than chasing the property into a stranger's hands. This reflects a basic policy choice: between an innocent buyer and an injured seller, the law refuses to punish the one who did nothing wrong.

When a third person is NOT protected

The shield is only for good faith. A third person who acquired the thing in bad faith — knowing of your right to rescind or of the defect in the transferor's title — does not enjoy this protection, and Article 1388 makes a bad-faith acquirer answerable in damages if returning the thing becomes impossible. Registration and the Mortgage Law also matter: the article expressly preserves rights acquired in accordance with those laws, so how and when the buyer's ownership was recorded can decide the contest. The practical lesson is to act on a right to rescind promptly, before the thing passes to someone the law will protect.

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.