When a rented property is damaged, does the tenant have to prove he was not at fault?

The presumption runs against the tenant

Article 1667 provides that The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault. This burden of proof on the lessee does not apply when the destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. That first sentence reverses what most tenants expect. The landlord does not have to show you did anything; damage to property in your possession is presumed to be your doing, and it is for you to displace that. The reason is practical rather than punitive: you were the one in a position to know what happened inside the unit.

What displacing it looks like

Proving an absence of fault is easier where it is done at the time. It usually means showing an external cause, or a defect in the property itself, or that the damage arose from ordinary use. A ceiling that fell because of a roof leak reported months earlier, wiring that failed behind a wall, a pipe that burst where the plumbing was already old: each of those is answered by a repair request the landlord did not act on, a tradesman's assessment, or an incident report from the day. Contemporaneous documents carry this burden; recollections offered at move-out rarely do.

The calamity exception

Where the destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity, the reversal does not apply, and the tenant is not put to proof of his own innocence. The exception recognises the obvious, that nobody arranges a typhoon. But note that it speaks of destruction due to the calamity. Damage that a calamity merely coincided with, or that flowed from the tenant's own failure to secure the property in the face of an announced storm, is a different matter, and the causal link is where the argument in these cases actually sits.

How this fits the rest of the tenancy

Article 1667 shares the field with its neighbours. Article 1665 requires return of the property as received, saving what was lost or impaired by the lapse of time, ordinary wear and tear, or an inevitable cause. Article 1666 presumes, absent a statement of condition at the start, that the lessee received the property in good condition. Article 1668 extends liability to deterioration caused by members of the household, guests and visitors. Together they mean the tenant who wants to be believed at the end should have documented the unit at the beginning.

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 →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1667 — Lessee's Liability for Loss/Deterioration
• Civil Code, Article 1665 — Return of the Thing Leased
• Civil Code, Article 1666 — Presumption of Good Condition
• Civil Code, Article 1668 — Liability for Household and Guests