Short answer. Yes, unless you can show it was not your fault. Article 1667 makes the lessee answerable for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, and puts the burden on you to prove it happened without your fault. That burden drops away only when the destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm or a like calamity.
What the law says
The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault.
Civil Code, Article 1667 — Lessee's Liability for Loss/Deterioration. Read the full provision →
Responsibility starts with you, not the landlord
Article 1667 states plainly that the lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault. Notice where the burden sits: the article does not require your landlord to prove you caused the damage. It presumes you are responsible once deterioration or loss is shown, and it is up to you to establish that it happened without your fault if you want to avoid liability. That is a meaningfully different starting position than being presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The exception for natural calamities
The article carves out one specific situation where that burden does not apply: this burden of proof on the lessee does not apply when the destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. For damage caused by these events, you are not required to affirmatively prove your innocence in the same way; the ordinary presumption of tenant responsibility simply does not attach to loss from that kind of cause in the first place.
Why documentation matters under this rule
Because the burden of proof is on you rather than your landlord, what you can actually show matters more than what feels fair. Photographs of the property's condition at move-in and move-out, dated messages about any pre-existing issues, and records of what happened around the time damage occurred are the kind of evidence that lets you meet Article 1667's "proves that it took place without his fault" standard. Without something to point to, the presumption of your responsibility stands.
What this article does not decide
Article 1667 addresses fault for deterioration or loss; it does not itself distinguish ordinary wear and tear from damage, or set out how any compensation you owe is to be calculated. Those questions may be governed elsewhere in the lease provisions or by what your specific lease agreement says, so if the dispute is really about whether something counts as damage at all, this article alone will not settle it.
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.
- University Physicians Services, Inc. vs. Marian Clinics, Inc. and Dr. Lourdes Mabanta, G.R. No. 152303, September 1, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Felsan Realty & Devt. Corp. vs. Commonwealth of Australia, G.R. No. 169656, October 11, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mindex Resources Development vs. Ephraim Morillo, G.R. No. 138123, March 12, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Agustin P. Dela Torre vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al./Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation, et al. vs. Crisostomo G. Concepcion, et al, G.R. No. 160088 / G.R. No. 160565, July 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →