Text of the provision
Art. 1576. If the hidden defect of animals, even in case a professional inspection has been made, should be of such a nature that expert knowledge is not sufficient to discover it, the defect shall be considered as redhibitory. But if the veterinarian, through ignorance or bad faith should fail to discover or disclose it, he shall be liable for damages.
(1495)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
A defect of animals not discoverable even by professional inspection is redhibitory; a veterinarian who fails to disclose it through ignorance or bad faith is liable for damages.
The rule draws a line between two different liabilities. The seller's warranty is strict: once a defect turns out to be undetectable by expert examination, it is redhibitory regardless of anyone's fault, and the buyer's remedies under the redhibitory action follow automatically. The veterinarian's liability is different — it is fault-based, arising only from ignorance or bad faith in failing to discover or disclose the defect. A vet who examines an animal with ordinary competence and still misses a truly undetectable defect incurs no liability under this article, since the defect itself, not the inspection, is what triggers the seller's warranty.
Questions about this provision
- Can I hold the veterinarian liable for failing, through ignorance or bad faith, to disclose an animal's defect?
- The animal's hidden defect could not be discovered even by a veterinarian, can I still return it?
Related provisions
- Article 1575 — Void Sales of Animals.
- Article 1577 — Prescription: Redhibitory Action for Animals (40 Days).
Cases interpreting this article
- Authorities on this article will be added here as each is verified against primary sources.