Short answer. Not automatically. Theft extinguishes the obligation only if the loss occurred without your fault and before you incurred delay, and you are presumed to be at fault until you show otherwise. Article 1268 removes even that defence where the debt of a determinate thing proceeds from a criminal offence.

What the law says

When the debt of a thing certain and determinate proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss

Civil Code, Article 1268 — Loss of a Thing Arising From a Crime. Read the full provision →

The ordinary rule has two conditions

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. Both conditions have to be met. A theft that occurs after the delivery date has passed, or after a demand you did not answer, does not release you, because by then you were already in delay. And a contract that places the risk of loss on the holder overrides the article entirely.

You start out presumed at fault

The first condition is harder than it looks. Article 1265 provides that whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor, it is presumed that the loss was due to his fault unless there is proof to the contrary — and the provision lifts that presumption only for earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. Theft is not on that list. So the fact of the robbery does not by itself answer the question; you must show that the loss did not come from your own negligence, which usually means evidence about how the item was kept and who had access to it, gathered at the time rather than afterwards.

The debtor who has no defence at all

Article 1268 states a much harsher rule for one class of obligor: When the debt of a thing certain and determinate proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss, unless he had offered the thing to the person entitled to receive it and that person refused without justification to accept it. This is aimed at someone obliged to return a thing because he took it wrongfully to begin with. For him the cause of the loss is irrelevant — fire, theft, accident, all the same. The only escape is a genuine tender that was unjustifiably refused.

What survives the loss

Even where the obligation is extinguished, something passes to the other side. Article 1269 provides that the obligation having been extinguished by the loss of the thing, the creditor shall have all the rights of action which the debtor may have against third persons by reason of the loss. So the claim against the thief, and any claim on a policy covering the item, belong to the person who was to receive it. Preserve them: report the theft and keep the report, notify any insurer promptly, and hand over the documentation rather than pursuing the recovery for your own account.

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.