Practice question
A flood destroys the leased thing. The stipulated 1667 natural-calamity exception applies. The lessor insists the ordinary lessee burden of proving no fault necessarily applies unchanged. Which is correct?
- The article expressly excepts that burden in the stated natural-calamity destruction case.
- Every flood automatically proves tenant negligence.
- The exception never appears in 1667.
- Only the flood’s name matters.
- The lessee must necessarily buy the entire property.
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles1649-1652,1663-1668,1870-1875,1890-1893 and1921-1932: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.