Short answer. Generally no. Article 552 says a good-faith possessor is not liable for the deterioration or loss of the property, unless it is proved he acted with fraudulent intent or negligence after the judicial summons. A bad-faith possessor, by contrast, answers for loss in every case — even one caused by a fortuitous event.
What the law says
A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or negligence, after the judicial summons.
Civil Code, Article 552 — Liability For Loss Or Deterioration. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if caused by a fortuitous event.
Civil Code, Article 552 — Liability For Loss Or Deterioration. Read the full provision →
The good-faith possessor's shield
Someone who possesses honestly, believing his claim sound, is not made to answer for the property simply wearing out or being lost in his hands. Article 552 provides that a possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, save in the exception it goes on to state. The premise is that he held the property as though it were his own and had no reason to think otherwise, so ordinary deterioration, and losses he did not culpably cause, fall on the owner rather than on the honest possessor who has to give the property back.
The exception: fault after the summons
The shield is not unconditional. It lifts in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or negligence, after the judicial summons. Two elements must both be present: culpable conduct — fraud or negligence, not mere bad luck — and its occurrence after the judicial summons. The burden is on whoever asserts liability to prove both. So a good-faith possessor is answerable only where he behaved dishonestly or carelessly toward the property once he had been formally called to account for it, not for anything that happened while his good faith was still intact.
Why the summons is the turning point
The judicial summons marks the moment the possessor is put on notice that his hold on the property is being challenged. Before it, he could reasonably treat the property as his and is judged leniently for what befalls it. After it, he knows the property may not be his to keep and is expected to handle it with corresponding care; carelessness or dishonesty from that point forward is no longer excused by his earlier good faith. The date of the summons therefore does real work — it separates the period in which the possessor is shielded from the period in which fault can be laid at his door.
The bad-faith possessor answers for everything
The contrast the article draws is stark: a possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if caused by a fortuitous event. One who possessed knowing he had no right carries the loss in all circumstances — including an accident no care could have prevented, which would ordinarily excuse anyone. He should not have had the property at all, so the law places on him even risks that fall on no one else. The practical stakes of the good-faith or bad-faith label are therefore large, which is why establishing it accurately, and pinning down the summons date, matters so much.
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.
- Spouses Abraham and Melchora Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Represented By Leticia C. Inukai, G.R. No. 180808, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →