Short answer. No. Article 1265 normally presumes a debtor at fault when a thing is lost in his possession, but that presumption does not apply when the loss is caused by earthquake, flood, storm, or another natural calamity. The creditor would instead have to prove your fault directly rather than rely on the presumption.
What the law says
Whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary, and without prejudice to the provisions of article 1165.
Civil Code, Article 1265 — Presumption of Fault on Loss. Read the full provision →
What the law says
This presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity.
Civil Code, Article 1265 — Presumption of Fault on Loss. Read the full provision →
The ordinary rule: loss in your possession is presumed your fault
Article 1265 starts from a general rule that favors the creditor: "whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary." This shifts the burden onto the debtor. Normally, if you were holding something you owed to someone else and it disappeared or was destroyed, the law assumes carelessness on your part unless you can show otherwise. The creditor does not first have to prove you were negligent.
The earthquake exception removes that presumption entirely
The same article carves out a specific exception for natural disasters: "this presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity." If your item was destroyed by an earthquake, the law does not start by assuming you were at fault. The presumption simply does not arise, which means the creditor bears the normal burden of proving that you were actually negligent, rather than you having to disprove a presumption stacked against you from the outset.
The exception removes a presumption, it does not clear you automatically
Losing the benefit of the presumption is different from being automatically free of liability. If the creditor can show through other evidence that you were negligent — for example, that you failed to secure the item properly, ignored a known risk, or otherwise contributed to the loss even though the earthquake was the immediate trigger — you can still be held liable. What changes is only who has to prove what: without the presumption, the creditor must actively establish your fault rather than you having to disprove an assumption already working against you.
How this interacts with delay in delivery
Article 1265 expressly operates "without prejudice to the provisions of article 1165," which deals with a debtor who has delayed delivery or has promised the same thing to more than one person. If you were already late in delivering the item, or had committed it to two different people, you may remain responsible for a loss from a fortuitous event like an earthquake even though the general presumption of fault does not apply. The earthquake exception protects a debtor who was not otherwise in default, not one who was already failing to perform.
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.
- Private Hospitals Association of the Philipines, Inc. (PHAPI) Represented by Dr. Rustico Jimenez vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea Executive Secretary and Acting Secretary of DOH…, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1265 — Presumption of Fault on Loss
- Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver