Short answer. Yes. Article 1165 says that if the obligor has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. So even an accidental loss before delivery is his liability, not yours.
What the law says
has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery
Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver. Read the full provision →
What the law says
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay
Civil Code, Article 1170 — Liability for Fraud, Negligence, Delay. Read the full provision →
A double promise defeats the usual accident excuse
Normally, if a determinate thing is lost by a genuine accident before delivery, the debtor is excused — the loss is nobody's fault and the obligation is extinguished. Article 1165 removes that excuse in a specific situation. Where the obligor has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. By committing the same specific item to competing buyers, the seller takes on the risk of loss himself. The chance destruction of the thing no longer sets him free; he answers for it.
Why the law is this strict
The rule holds the seller to an impossible promise he created. He cannot hand the very same specific thing to two buyers whose interests conflict; performance to one necessarily defeats the other. Having put himself in that position, the law will not let him hide behind an accident when the thing is lost. The phrase who do not have the same interest matters: it targets rival claimants to the one item, not, say, co-owners who share a single interest in it. Against you, the disappointed buyer, the seller stays on the hook even for a loss he did not personally cause.
What you can recover
Because the seller bears the fortuitous event, his failure to deliver is treated as a breach for which he answers. The article opens by giving the creditor of a determinate thing, in addition to the right granted him by article 1170, the power to compel delivery. Article 1170 in turn makes those guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay — or who otherwise contravene the obligation — liable for damages. So where the item is gone and delivery is impossible, you are not simply told hard luck; you may pursue the seller for the damages his double dealing and the resulting loss caused you.
What the rule does not do
This liability springs from the seller's own conduct — promising one specific thing to rival buyers — not from every case of accidental loss. If the thing had been promised to you alone and was destroyed by a true fortuitous event before any delay, the ordinary rule would apply and the loss might fall where it lands. Nor does the article decide which competing buyer ultimately owns the item when it still exists; separate rules on double sales handle that. What it fixes here is narrower and firm: once he made the double promise, the seller carries the risk until he actually delivers.
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.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rebecca T. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation, G.R. No. 146594, June 10, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →