Article 1265. 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. This presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity.
Artikulo 1265. Kapag ang bagay ay nawala sa mga kamay ng may utang, ito ay inaakalang nawala dulot ng kanyang pagkakamali, maliban na lamang kung may makakapagpatunay sa taliwas nito, nang hindi nakakapinsala sa probisyon ng Artikulo 1165. Ang sapantahang nabanggit ay hindi maaaring gamiting sa mga kaso ng lindol, baha, bagyo, o anumang natural na kalamidad.
The article establishes a disputable presumption of fault whenever the thing to be delivered is lost in the possession of the debtor. This presumption is reasonable because the debtor who has the custody and care of the thing can easily explain the circumstances of the loss. The creditor has no duty to show that the debtor was at fault.
Under the third paragraph of Article 1165, the obligor who is not at fault is still liable in case he is guilty of delay or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest.
In case of natural calamities, the presumption of fault does not apply. Lack of fault on the part of the debtor is more likely. So it is unjust to presume negligence on his part.
ILLUSTRATION
(1) Ben borrowed the car of Bon. On the due date of the obligation, Ben told Bon that the car was stolen and that he was not at fault. That is not enough to extinguish Ben’s obligation. It is presumed that the loss was due to his fault. Hence, he is liable unless he proves the contrary.
(2) Suppose the house of Ben was destroyed because of earthquake. It is admitted that there was an earthquake and it was accidental and that the car was in the house at the time it occurred. Here, Ben is not liable unless Bon proves fault on the part of Ben.
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS 