Short answer. The law requires you to care for sequestered property the way a good and prudent head of household would manage his own family's property. This is the standard of a good father of a family — reasonable diligence, not perfection, but genuine attention to preservation and protection of what you hold.
What the law says
The depositary of property sequestrated is bound to comply, with respect to the same, with all the obligations of a good father of a family.
Civil Code, Article 2008 — Diligence in Sequestration. Read the full provision →
The standard: a good father of a family
Article 2008 of the Civil Code sets a single clear standard for a court-appointed depositary of sequestered property: the obligations of a good father of a family. This is the same diligence standard that appears throughout the Civil Code for persons who manage property belonging to another. It means ordinary, reasonable care — the kind a prudent person exercises over his own household's assets. It does not demand perfection or professional expertise, but it does require genuine attention: you cannot be indifferent or casual about property that a court has placed in your custody.
What sequestration means and why the standard matters
Sequestration is a provisional measure: a court places disputed or at-risk property in the hands of a neutral depositary while litigation is pending, so that neither party can dispose of it or let it deteriorate. Because the property belongs to someone else — a litigant whose ownership is still being resolved — the depositary carries real responsibility. If the property is damaged, destroyed, or allowed to deteriorate through the depositary's lack of care, that person may be held accountable for the resulting loss. The "good father" standard is the floor of acceptable conduct.
Practical obligations this creates
In concrete terms, being a good-father-of-the-family depositary means: keeping the property secure and physically intact, paying necessary maintenance costs if the court authorizes it, not using the property for your own benefit, keeping records of its condition, and promptly reporting any threats to its preservation to the court that appointed you. If the sequestered property is a business or produces income, you must manage it honestly and account for all revenues. You cannot be negligent and then claim the loss was unforeseeable if you took no precautions.
What you are not required to do
The standard does not make you an insurer of the property. If the property is damaged by a genuinely unforeseeable event — a typhoon, fire, or earthquake — and you exercised the care a reasonable person would have, you are not automatically liable. The question is always whether a prudent caretaker in your position would have done something differently. If the answer is no, the loss is not yours to bear. What the standard does require is that you take the steps a careful person would actually take — not merely go through the motions.
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.
- Eliseo N. Joseph vs. Spouses Jesefina Joseph and Danilo Joseph, G.R. No. 234384, April 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Heirs of George Y. Poe vs. Malayan Insurance Co. Inc, G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Zacarias Delos Santos vs. Consuelo B. Papa and Maria C. Mateo, G.R. No. 154427, May 8, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Victory Liner, Inc vs. Heirs of Andres Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278, December 27, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →