Short answer. The care of a good father of a family. Article 2008 binds the custodian of sequestered property to comply with all the obligations of a good father of a family — ordinary, reasonable diligence, the care a prudent person gives his own property. It is not absolute insurance against every loss, but it forbids carelessness.
What the law says
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 is a good father of a family
The care demanded of a keeper of sequestered property is not left vague. Article 2008 says the keeper is bound to comply, with respect to the same, with all the obligations of a good father of a family. That phrase is the Civil Code's ordinary yardstick for diligence: the care a reasonably prudent person takes of his own property. It is neither a token effort nor a promise that nothing can ever go wrong. The keeper must act as a sensible owner would in the same situation, and he is measured against what such a person would have done, not against a standard of perfection.
What that requires in practice
Applied to real things, the standard has content. It means storing or holding the property somewhere suitable and secure, protecting it from foreseeable harm, keeping up any maintenance a prudent owner would not neglect, and not letting it be mixed up with the keeper's own belongings so that it later cannot be told apart. It also means the keeper does not use the property for himself or lend it out — his role is preservation, not enjoyment. What a good father of a family would do depends on what the property is: a warehouse of goods, a vehicle and a parcel of land each call for different concrete steps.
When the keeper answers for a loss
The diligence standard is also the liability line. If the property is lost, damaged or diminished because the keeper fell short of the care a prudent owner would have taken, he answers for it. A loss he could not have prevented even with that ordinary care sits differently — the article measures fault, not outcome, so the question in any dispute is whether reasonable diligence was in fact exercised. This is why the standard is worth stating precisely: it tells the keeper how much is enough, and it tells the owner what he must show to hold the keeper responsible when something goes wrong.
What to do on either side
If you are the keeper, the practical protection is a contemporaneous record — the condition of the property when you received it, where and how you are holding it, and any steps you took to look after it. That evidence is what later separates a fortuitous loss from a negligent one. If it is your property under custody, note its state at the point it was taken and keep that note, because a claim for damage or shortfall at the end of the case turns on the difference between how the thing went in and how it came out.
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 →