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. (1183a)

Presumption of fault in case of lossof thing in possession of debtor

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.

When presumption not applicable

"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." (Report of the
Code Commission, p. 133.)

Illustration:
D borrowed the car of C. On the due date of the obligation, D told C that the car was stolen and
that he was not at fault. That is not enough to extinguish D's obligation. It is presumed that the
loss was due to his fault. Hence, he is liable unless he proves the contrary.

Suppose the house of D was destroyed because of fire. It is admitted that there was a fire and it
was accidental and that the car was in the house at the time it occurred. Here, D is not liable
unless C proves fault on the part of D. (Arts. 1174, 1262)