Short answer. It is the Civil Code's classic phrase for ordinary reasonable care. Article 1657 requires a tenant to use the leased property the way a prudent, careful person would use his own, devoting it to the stipulated purpose, and if none was stipulated, to the use the nature of the thing and local custom suggest.
What the law says
To use the thing leased as a diligent father of a family, devoting it to the use stipulated; and in the absence of stipulation, to that which may be inferred from the nature of the thing leased, according to the custom of the place
Civil Code, Article 1657 — Obligations of the Lessee. Read the full provision →
An Old Phrase for an Ordinary Standard
"Diligent father of a family" is a stock phrase the Civil Code borrows from Spanish civil law tradition to describe the standard of ordinary care a person of average prudence exercises over his own affairs. It is not a stricter or looser standard reserved for landlord-tenant relationships; it is the same baseline of reasonable diligence the Code applies to obligors generally.
What It Requires From a Tenant Day to Day
Concretely, it means a tenant should not misuse, neglect, or expose the property to avoidable damage, and should use it for the purpose the lease specifies. If the contract is silent on the intended use, the tenant must infer a reasonable purpose from the nature of the thing itself and from how similar property is customarily used in that locality, rather than putting it to an unexpected or destructive use.
Falling Short of the Standard
A tenant who lets the property deteriorate through carelessness, or who devotes it to a use plainly inconsistent with what was stipulated or reasonably inferred, breaches this obligation. That breach can expose him to liability for resulting damage and, in serious cases, can support rescission of the lease under the general remedy for a lessee's default, or a claim for damages while the contract continues, at the aggrieved landlord's election.
Why Courts Use an Objective Test
The phrase deliberately avoids asking what the particular tenant subjectively believed was careful enough. It measures conduct against how an ordinarily prudent person would have managed the same property under the same circumstances, which keeps the standard predictable for both sides instead of turning every dispute into a debate over the tenant's personal habits or intentions, or over how careful he happened to be with his own belongings elsewhere.
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.
- Efren S. Quesada, et al. vs. Bonanza Restaurants, Inc, G.R. No. 207500, November 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Victoria N. Racelis vs. Spouses Germil Javier and Rebecca Javier, G.R. No. 189609, January 29, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1657 — Obligations of the Lessee
- Civil Code, Article 1659 — Remedies for Breach of Lease