Short answer. A farm tenant may reduce the rent only when more than half the crop is lost through an extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event. Article 1680 gives examples: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or other uncommon events the parties could not reasonably have foreseen — not ordinary bad weather or poor soil.
What the law says
Extraordinary fortuitous events are understood to be: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others which are uncommon, and which the contracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen.
Civil Code, Article 1680 — Rent Reduction for Loss of Crops. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The lessee shall have no right to a reduction of the rent on account of the sterility of the land leased, or by reason of the loss of fruits due to ordinary fortuitous events
Civil Code, Article 1680 — Rent Reduction for Loss of Crops. Read the full provision →
The rule and its threshold
Article 1680 gives an agricultural lessee a narrow right to a rent reduction, and it turns on two things happening together. First, the loss must be large: the tenant has the right only in case of the loss of more than one-half of the fruits — losing a small or ordinary part of the harvest is not enough. Second, the cause must be an extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event, not an everyday misfortune of farming. If either element is missing — the loss is under half, or the cause is ordinary — the rent stays due in full. The provision protects a tenant against catastrophe, not against a merely disappointing season.
Extraordinary versus ordinary events
The article itself lists what it means by extraordinary: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others which are uncommon, and which the contracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen. The unifying idea is that the event is rare and beyond what a farmer and landowner would normally plan around. This is the opposite of an ordinary fortuitous event — the familiar risks of the trade such as usual dry spells, common pests, or the routine failure of a crop — for which the law expressly denies any reduction. The line is not the size of the damage but the rarity of the cause: an unforeseeable, uncommon calamity qualifies; a predictable hazard of farming does not.
No reduction for sterility — and the escape clause
The same article is blunt about what does not qualify. A lessee shall have no right to a reduction of the rent on account of the sterility of the land leased, or by reason of the loss of fruits due to ordinary fortuitous events. So a tenant who finds the soil poorer than hoped, or who loses part of the harvest to an ordinary event, cannot demand less rent on that basis. The right also yields to the contract: it applies save always when there is a specific stipulation to the contrary. If the lease itself allocates these risks differently — placing them wholly on the tenant, for instance — that agreement controls, so the written terms should be read first.
Who it covers and what it does not do
This rule is part of the Civil Code's general law on the lease of rural land, and it governs an ordinary lessor-tenant relationship measured by the fruits of the land. It does not fix how much the reduction should be — that depends on the extent of the loss and the terms of the lease — nor does it forgive rent already earned before the event. It is also separate from the special protections that agrarian-reform laws give certain agricultural tenants, which can apply on top of the Civil Code. Because a claim turns on proving both the extent of the loss and the extraordinary nature of its cause, keep records of the harvest and the event, and review the lease with counsel, before withholding any rent.
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.
- Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc., vs. UCPB General Insurance Company, Inc, G.R. No. 146018, June 25, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →