Short answer. Generally no. Article 1631 of the Civil Code provides that a seller of rights in a lump sum is answerable for the legitimacy of the whole in general, but is not obligated to warrant each separate part — unless the buyer is evicted from the whole or from a part of greater value.
What the law says
One who sells for a lump sum the whole of certain rights, rents, or products, shall comply by answering for the legitimacy of the whole in general; but he shall not be obliged to warrant each of the various parts of which it may be composed, except in the case of eviction from the whole or the part of greater value.
Civil Code, Article 1631 — Sale of Rights in Bulk. Read the full provision →
The general rule for lump-sum sales of rights
Article 1631 of the Civil Code addresses what a seller warrants when they sell the whole of a bundle of rights, rents, or products for a single lump sum. The rule is: One who sells for a lump sum the whole of certain rights, rents, or products, shall comply by answering for the legitimacy of the whole in general; but he shall not be obliged to warrant each of the various parts of which it may be composed, except in the case of eviction from the whole or the part of greater value. The seller warrants the bundle as a whole — not each individual component that makes it up.
Warranty of legitimacy, not of each part
The warranty in a lump-sum sale of rights is for the legitimacy of the whole in general. This means the seller represents that the bundle of rights being sold is valid and genuine as an aggregate — not that every individual right within it is free from challenge. If one minor right in the bundle turns out to be subject to a third-party claim, that does not automatically expose the seller to liability, because the seller never warranted each part individually. The seller warranted the package. A buyer who understands this before purchasing has the opportunity to investigate the composition of the bundle; after purchasing, the buyer takes on the risk of minor defects in individual rights.
The exception: eviction from the whole or a part of greater value
Article 1631 creates a critical exception to the limited warranty. Even in a lump-sum sale, the seller is liable when there is eviction from the whole or from the part of greater value. Eviction means the buyer is judicially displaced from possession of the right or property by a person who has a better right. If the buyer is evicted from the entire bundle — or from a single component that represents the more valuable part of what was sold — the seller's warranty obligation is triggered. A buyer who loses a minor, low-value right to eviction cannot claim from the seller; a buyer who loses the most significant right in the bundle can.
Practical implications for sellers and buyers
For the seller, Article 1631 provides meaningful protection. Selling a bundle of diverse rights, rents, and products in a single transaction would be commercially unrealistic if the seller had to individually warrant each component. The law limits exposure to the bundle as a whole and to losses involving the most significant parts. For the buyer, the article signals that due diligence before the sale is important. The buyer should identify which components of the bundle are most valuable and investigate those carefully before agreeing to a lump sum. Once the transaction is closed, the buyer cannot complain about a defect in a minor component — the limited warranty of Article 1631 is what was purchased.