Short answer. You do. Article 1265 provides that 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. The burden sits on you, with one carve-out for natural calamities.

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 →

The presumption runs against the holder

Article 1265 provides that 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. The logic is evidentiary rather than moral. Only the person who had the thing knows how it was stored, who had keys, what precautions were taken and what happened on the day. Requiring the creditor to prove negligence inside a warehouse he has never entered would make the obligation unenforceable. So the law starts from fault and lets the holder displace it — the presumption is disputable, not conclusive.

Why the burden decides the case

This matters because of what sits behind it. Article 1262 provides that an obligation to deliver a determinate thing is extinguished if the thing is lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor and before he has incurred delay, and that where by law or stipulation the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss does not exempt him. So whether you are discharged or liable for the value turns entirely on the fault question — and Article 1265 hands the losing side of that question to you at the outset. Note the second condition too: a debtor already in delay when the thing was lost cannot rely on Article 1262 at all.

The one carve-out, and what it does not cover

The article ends by providing that the presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. Where the item was destroyed by a typhoon or a quake, you do not start out presumed at fault; the other side must show that your own conduct caused the loss. The list is narrow and its members have something in common — they are natural events, publicly documented, and obviously outside anyone's control. Theft, robbery, fire of unknown origin, and simple disappearance are not on it, so those are precisely the losses where the presumption falls on the holder.

What actually rebuts it

Contemporaneous records, not recollection. The delivery or receiving documents showing when the item came into your hands and in what condition; the storage arrangements, access logs and security measures in place; the incident report and any police blotter entry made at the time; the insurance notification and the insurer's findings. Article 1174 is the standard you are aiming at — that no person is responsible for events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable, unless the law, a stipulation or the nature of the obligation says otherwise. Check the contract as well: parties can and do stipulate that the holder bears the risk regardless.

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.