Short answer. Yes. Whenever the thing is lost in the debtor's possession, the law presumes the loss was due to the debtor's fault, unless you prove otherwise — though this presumption does not apply where the loss was caused by an earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity.
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, and why it exists
The statute presumes that when a thing is lost while in the debtor's possession — your possession, in your situation — the loss was due to your fault. This shifts the practical burden onto you: rather than the creditor having to prove you were negligent, the law starts from the assumption that you were, precisely because you were the one in control of the thing when it disappeared.
The presumption can be overcome with proof
This is a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic conclusion. The law is explicit that it applies unless there is proof to the contrary. If you can show that the loss actually happened without any fault on your part — for instance, that you exercised the diligence required of you and the loss occurred despite that — the presumption of fault can be overcome by that proof.
Natural calamities are carved out entirely
The article adds a specific exception: this presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity. Where one of these events caused the loss, you do not even start from a presumption of fault that you then have to rebut — the presumption simply does not attach to a loss caused by that kind of event in the first place.
This presumption works alongside, not instead of, other remedies
The article expressly operates without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1165, which addresses what a creditor can demand when delivery of a determinate thing has not been made — including compelling delivery, and holding a debtor who delayed responsible even for a fortuitous event in certain situations. The fault presumption addressed here does not replace those separate remedies; it works alongside them in assessing responsibility once a specific thing due for delivery has actually been lost.
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.
- Private Hospitals Association of the Philipines, Inc. (PHAPI) Represented by Dr. Rustico Jimenez vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea Executive Secretary and Acting Secretary of DOH…, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1265 — Presumption of Fault on Loss
- Civil Code, Article 1165 — Remedies for Failure to Deliver