Genus nunquam perit, genus never perishes as translated, is a

legal principle wherein in case of loss due to fortuitous event, an

obligation may not be extinguished if such thing is generic. In civil law,
genus refers to a general class or division, comprising several species.
On the other hand, thing is generic or indeterminate when it refers only
to a class or genus to which it pertains and cannot be pointed out with
particularity.

The Article 1156 of the Civil Code provides that in case of loss of
generic thing, a debtor can still be liable and be compelled to do the
obligation of delivering generic thing because the thing can be replaced
by another thing that is of the same quality and same kind. However,
according the Article 1246 of the same code, the creditor, cannot
demand a thing of superior quality and neither can debtor deliver a thing
of inferior quality. The case of Bunge Corporation v Camenforte, G.R. No.
L-4440 dated August 29, 1952, further explains that a generic thing is one
whose determination is confined to that of its nature, to the genus to which it
pertains, such as a horse, a chair.

In the case of Yu Tek & Co., vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-9935 dated
February 1, 1915, it was not specified in the written contract that the
sugar was to come from the crop on defendant's land which was
destroyed. It was held that the sugar to be sold not having been
segregated, the sale was not perfected and the loss of the crop, even
though through force majeure did not extinguish defendant's obligation
to deliver the sugar.

In the case of Reyes vs. Caltex, G.R. No. L-1802 dated September
30, 1949, the court determined the act of delivering centrifugal sugar as
promise of a generic thing. It could be any centrifugal sugar without
regard to origin or how he secured it. Hence, the debtor’s inability to
produce sugar, irrespective of the cause, did not relieve him from his
commitment. War, like floods and other catastrophes, was a

1. Article 1165 and Article 1246 of Civil Code of the Philippines available at
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1949/06/18/republic-act-no-386/ (last visited December 15, 2020)
2. Bunge Corporation v Camenforte, G.R. No. L-4440 dated August 29, 1952 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1952/aug1952/gr_l-4440_1952.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
3. Yu Tek & Co., vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-9935 dated February 1, 1915 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1915/feb1915/gr_l-9935_1915.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
4. Reyes vs. Caltex, G.R. No. L-1802 dated September 30, 1949 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/sep1949/gr_l-1802_1949.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
5. De Leon v Soriano, G.R. No. L-2724 dated August 24, 1950 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1950/aug1950/gr_l-2724_1950.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
6. Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. 147839 dated June 8, 2006 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_147839_2006.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
contingency, a collateral incident, which he could have provided for by
proper stipulation.

In the case of De Leon v Soriano, G.R. No. L-2724 dated August

24, 1950, wherein the obligation is to deliver canvans of palay, the court
held that except as to qualify and quantity, the first of which is itself
generic, the contract sets no bounds or limits to the palay to be paid, nor
was there even any stipulation that the cereal was to be the produce of
any particular land. Any palay of the quality stipulated regardless of
origin or however acquired (lawfully) would be obligatory on the part of
the obligee to receive and would discharge the obligation. It seems
therefore plain that the alleged failure of crops through alleged fortuitous
cause did not excuse performance.

Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v Insurance Company of North America,

G.R. No. 147839 dated June 8, 2006 also used the said principle
wherein it was decided that an obligation to pay money is generic and is
not excused by fortuitous loss of any specific property of the debtor.

To sum it up, Genus nunquam perit principle hinders the

fortuitous event from the extinguishing an obligation which involves
generic thing. The cases mentioned above show and explain the
application of Genus nunquam perit principle in real life situations.

1. Article 1165 and Article 1246 of Civil Code of the Philippines available at
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1949/06/18/republic-act-no-386/ (last visited December 15, 2020)
2. Bunge Corporation v Camenforte, G.R. No. L-4440 dated August 29, 1952 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1952/aug1952/gr_l-4440_1952.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
3. Yu Tek & Co., vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-9935 dated February 1, 1915 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1915/feb1915/gr_l-9935_1915.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
4. Reyes vs. Caltex, G.R. No. L-1802 dated September 30, 1949 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/sep1949/gr_l-1802_1949.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
5. De Leon v Soriano, G.R. No. L-2724 dated August 24, 1950 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1950/aug1950/gr_l-2724_1950.html (last visited December 15, 2020)
6. Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. 147839 dated June 8, 2006 available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_147839_2006.html (last visited December 15, 2020)