Short answer. No, not automatically. Article 1264 of the Civil Code leaves it to the courts to decide, based on the circumstances, whether a partial loss is important enough to extinguish the obligation entirely. A minor partial loss will usually not cancel the whole obligation; a loss that defeats the very purpose of the obligation may.
What the law says
The courts shall determine whether, under the circumstances, the partial loss of the object of the obligation is so important as to extinguish the obligation.
Civil Code, Article 1264 — Partial Loss. Read the full provision →
There is no automatic rule
Where the specific thing you owed is destroyed in full and without your fault, the obligation is generally extinguished outright. Partial loss is different. Article 1264 does not set a fixed threshold, a percentage, or a formula for when a partial loss is enough to wipe out the whole obligation. Instead, it hands that judgment to the courts, to be made case by case, looking at what actually happened to the thing and what the obligation was meant to accomplish.
What courts weigh in making that call
Because the statute speaks only of what is "so important as to extinguish the obligation," the inquiry turns on substance rather than a fixed measure. Relevant considerations include how much of the thing's value or usefulness the loss actually took away, whether what remains can still serve the purpose the parties had in mind, and whether the destroyed part was central to the bargain or genuinely incidental to it. A loss that leaves the thing still fit for its intended use points away from extinguishment; a loss that defeats that purpose points toward it.
If the obligation is not extinguished
Where the partial loss is judged not important enough to cancel the obligation, the debtor generally remains bound to deliver what is left, though questions can arise over whether the price or consideration should be adjusted to reflect the diminished thing. Article 1264 addresses whether the obligation survives at all; it does not by itself fix how any reduction in value should be shared between the parties, which depends on the rest of their agreement and the general rules on loss and impairment.
What helps you make the case either way
Because Article 1264 turns on facts the court has to weigh rather than a fixed rule, evidence matters. A debtor arguing the obligation should be extinguished benefits from showing how the destroyed part affected the thing's usefulness, ideally with an appraisal, photographs, or an expert opinion on the extent of the damage. A creditor resisting extinguishment can point to continued value or usability of what remains. Because the outcome depends heavily on the specific object and the parties' original purpose for it, there is no shortcut that substitutes for laying out exactly what was lost and what still remains.