The seller damaged the thing I was buying on condition through his own fault while we waited for the condition - what are my options?

Your two choices when the seller is at fault

Article 1189 governs what happens to a thing promised under a suspensive condition — a sale that takes effect only if some future event occurs — when the thing changes in the meantime. Your situation is deterioration caused by the seller, and for that the article is explicit: If it deteriorates through the fault of the debtor, the creditor may choose between the rescission of the obligation and its fulfillment, with indemnity for damages in either case. The seller is the debtor of the obligation to give; you, the buyer, are the creditor. The choice is yours, not his — and either way you may recover damages for the harm he caused.

Rescission or fulfilment - what each means

If you rescind, the obligation is called off: you are not bound to go through with buying a thing the seller allowed to deteriorate, and you are freed from paying for it. If you choose fulfilment, you hold the seller to the sale and take the thing in its impaired state, but you are compensated for the lost value. Crucially, indemnity for damages attaches to either path. You are not forced to accept damaged goods in order to be paid, nor to give up the transaction just to escape them. You pick the outcome that suits you, and are made whole for the fault.

The fault requirement unlocks the choice

Your power to choose exists only because the deterioration was the seller's fault. The same article treats innocent deterioration very differently: When the thing deteriorates without the fault of the debtor, the impairment is to be borne by the creditor. So if the thing had simply worn out or been damaged by chance, you would take it as it is, with no claim. It is the seller's fault — his act or negligence causing the damage while you both waited for the condition — that shifts the consequences onto him and hands you the option to rescind or to fulfil with damages.

What this rule does not cover

Article 1189 applies while the condition is still pending, to a suspensive condition affecting an obligation to give. It does not decide whether the condition itself was met, and it does not turn deterioration into total loss — if the thing had perished entirely through the seller's fault, the article's separate loss rule would make him liable for damages instead. Nor does it let you both rescind and demand delivery; you elect one remedy, with indemnity. And the damages it allows are compensation for the harm actually suffered, not a penalty beyond the loss the seller's fault caused.

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.

• National Power Corporation vs Socorro T. Posada, Renato Bueno, Alice Balin, Adrian Tablizo, et al, G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Agustin P. Dela Torre vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al./Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation, et al. vs. Crisostomo G. Concepcion, et al, G.R. No. 160088 / G.R. No. 160565, July 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Sergio Osmeña III, et al. vs. SS etc., et al, G.R. No. 165272, September 13, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Heirs of TImoteo Moreno, et al. vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 156273, October 15, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1189 — Loss, Deterioration, Improvement Pending a Suspensive Condition