Text of the provision
Art. 1262. An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss of the thing does not extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. The same rule applies when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.
(1182a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
An obligation to deliver a determinate thing is extinguished if the thing is lost without the debtor's fault and before delay. But where the law, a stipulation, or the nature of the obligation makes the debtor bear the risk, loss does not extinguish it and damages are owed.
Questions about this provision
- The specific antique car I was supposed to deliver got destroyed in a fire before I could hand it over, and it wasn't my fault — is my obligation to deliver it extinguished?
- The specific item I owe someone was stolen from me by a thief — does that automatically excuse me from my obligation to deliver it?
Related provisions
- Article 1261 — Effect of Withdrawal Authorized by the Creditor.
- Article 1263 — Loss of a Generic Thing (Genus Nunquam Perit).
Cases citing this article
- CJH Development Corporation vs. Corazon D. Aniceto/Corazon D. Aniceto vs. CJH Development Corporation, et, G.R. No. 224006 / G.R. No. 224472, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Ricardo and Elena C. Golez vs Meliton Nemeño, G.R. No. 178317, September 23, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 153827, April 25, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jimmy Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.