Short answer. No. Article 1263 provides that in an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation. What burned was your stock, not the thing you owe — rice and cement still exist, so you must source them elsewhere.

What the law says

In an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation.

Civil Code, Article 1263 — Loss of a Generic Thing (Genus Nunquam Perit). Read the full provision →

The kind never perishes

Article 1263 of the Civil Code is a single sentence with a long reach: In an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation. What you promised was a quantity of a kind of goods, not the particular sacks sitting in your warehouse. Those sacks were merely how you intended to perform. Their destruction is your commercial misfortune, not the disappearance of the subject matter, and the buyer's right is unaffected because the same goods can be bought from someone else. You must buy them, at whatever the market now charges.

Why fortuitous events do not help here

Debtors in this position reach for Article 1174, under which no person is responsible for events that could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable, except where the law or a stipulation provides otherwise or the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. It does not rescue a generic obligation, because the fortuitous event did not make performance impossible. It made performance expensive. Compare Article 1262, which extinguishes the obligation where a determinate thing is lost without fault and before delay — that article works precisely because the identified thing cannot be replaced, and yours can.

What you owe when you replace the stock

You are not obliged to deliver the best on the market, and the buyer cannot use the disruption to upgrade his order. Article 1246 provides that when the obligation consists in the delivery of an indeterminate or generic thing, whose quality and circumstances have not been stated, the creditor cannot demand a thing of superior quality, nor may the debtor deliver one of inferior quality, and that the purpose of the obligation and other circumstances shall be considered. Where the contract does specify grade, brand or specification, that is what has to be sourced, and a near equivalent is a variation the buyer is entitled to refuse.

Where relief might still come from

Look to the contract before the Code. A force majeure clause, a supply-contingency clause, or a term identifying a specific harvest, plant or lot can change the analysis entirely, and a well-drafted supply agreement usually says what happens to deliveries after a disaster. Beyond that, keep the exposure from growing while you argue: a delivery that is merely late is a smaller problem than one that is refused, and any penalty clause in the contract will be accruing. Tell the buyer promptly what happened and what you can still deliver, in writing.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.