Short answer. If eviction takes away a part so important that you would not have bought the property without it, Article 1556 of the Civil Code lets you demand rescission of the whole sale instead of merely claiming on the seller's warranty. You must return what is left, without encumbrances other than those it already had.
What the law says
Should the vendee lose, by reason of the eviction, a part of the thing sold of such importance, in relation to the whole, that he would not have bought it without said part, he may demand the rescission of the contract
Civil Code, Article 1556 — Partial Eviction. Read the full provision →
The test is importance, not size
The article does not measure the lost portion by area or by value alone. The question is whether that part was so important in relation to the whole that you would not have bought without it. A narrow strip that carries the only access road, or the corner on which the house actually stands, can satisfy the test even though it is a small fraction of the land. Conversely, losing a sizeable but unremarkable portion of a large parcel may not, in which case the ordinary partial-eviction remedy applies and you claim the value of what was lost.
Rescission or warranty, but you choose one
The Code is explicit that this right of action is exercised instead of enforcing the seller’s liability for eviction. You either unwind the sale and recover the price, or you keep what remains and claim the value of the part taken, with the other items the warranty covers. You do not get both.
Choosing rescission carries a condition: you must return the thing, and you must return it without encumbrances other than those it carried when you acquired it. A buyer who has mortgaged the property, or who has let liens accumulate against it, has to clear them before demanding rescission.
Lump-sum purchases and the practical steps
The same rule applies where two or more things were sold together, for one lump sum or even at separate prices, if it clearly appears that you would not have bought one without the other. Matched pairs, a machine and its indispensable component, or adjoining lots bought as a single site all fall within this.
Eviction here means being deprived by a final judgment on a right existing before the sale. That matters procedurally: the seller should be notified and brought into the case as early as possible, because a seller who was never given the chance to defend the title may resist liability afterwards. Take advice as soon as a third party asserts a claim, not after judgment.
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.
- Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173441, December 3, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →