fortuitous event case- oblicon

8/19/2019 Fortuitous event Case- OBLICON

1/43

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 165548 June 13, 2011

PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.

LEY CONSTRCTION AND DE!ELOP"ENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 16#8#$

LEY CONSTRCTION AND DE!ELOP"ENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

These are onsolidated petitions !or revie" #nder R#le $% o! the Ne" R#les o! CivilProed#re &led '( 'oth parties !ro) a Co#rt o! *ppeals +C* Deision in C*-R No. /012dated 23 Septe)'er 033$. This Deision reversed a Deision o! the Re4ional Trial Co#rt+RTC, National Capital 5#diial Re4ion +NC5R, 6ranh /2% in Ma7ati Cit( dated 2/ 5an#ar(033/ in Civil Case No. 18-/83.

The !ore4oin4 are the !ats #lled !ro) the reord, and !ro) the &ndin4s o! the C* and theRTC.

9e( Constr#tion and Develop)ent Corporation +9CDC "as the pro:et ontrator !or theonstr#tion o! several '#ildin4s !or Philippine Realt( ; Holdin4s Corporation +PRHC, thepro:et o"ner. En4ineer Dennis *'ede +*'ede "as the pro:et onstr#tion )ana4er o!PRHC, "hile 5oselito Santos +Santos "as its 4eneral )ana4er and vie-president !or

operations.

So)eti)e 'et"een *pril /1onstr#tiona4ree)ents.> 9CDC o))itted itsel! to the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4s needed '( PRHC,"hih in t#rn o))itted itsel! to pa( the ontrat prie a4reed #pon. These "ere the !o#ronstr#tion pro:ets the parties entered into involvin4 a Pro:et /, Pro:et 0, Pro:et 2 +allo! "hih involve the *lexandra '#ildin4s and a Te7tite 6#ildin4?

/. Constr#tion *4ree)ent dated 0% *pril /19, %, 1, ; *> +4ro#nd Goor to the %th Goor o! the Te7tite To"ers.


2/43

Santos si4ned the letter-a4ree)ent on the onstr#tion o! the drivers F#arters in Pro:et2,/ "hile 'oth he and *'ede si4ned the letter-a4ree)ent on the onretin4 "or7s on 9,%, 1, and *, and also o! Pro:et 2.0

In order to :#)p-start the onstr#tion operations, 9CDC "as reF#ired to s#')it aper!or)ane 'ond as provided !or in the onstr#tion a4ree)ents. *s stated in thesea4ree)ents, as soon as PRHC reeived the per!or)ane 'ond, it "o#ld deliver its initialpa()ent to 9CDC. The re)ainin4 'alane "as to 'e paid in )onthl( pro4ress pa()ents'ased on at#al "or7 o)pleted. In pratie, these )onthl( pro4ress pa()ents "ere #sed'( 9CDC to p#rhase the )aterials needed to ontin#e the onstr#tion o! the re)ainin4parts o! the '#ildin4.

In the o#rse o! the onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4, it 'ea)e evident to 'oth partiesthat 9CDC "o#ld not 'e a'le to &nish the pro:et "ithin the a4reed period. Th#s, thro#4hits president, 9CDC )et "ith *'ede to dis#ss the a#se o! the dela(. 9CDC explainedthat the #nantiipated dela( in onstr#tion "as d#e )ainl( to the s#dden, #nexpetedhi7e in the pries o! e)ent and other onstr#tion )aterials. It lai)ed that, "itho#t aorrespondin4 inrease in the &xed pries !o#nd in the a4ree)ents, it "o#ld 'e i)possi'le!or it to &nish the onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4. In their anal(sis o! the pro:et plans!or the '#ildin4 and o! all the external !ators aetin4 the o)pletion o! the pro:et, theparties disovered that even i! 9CDC "ere a'le to ollet the entire 'alane !ro) theontrat, the olleted a)o#nt "o#ld still 'e ins#ient to p#rhase all the )aterialsneeded to o)plete the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4.

6oth parties a4reed that their !ore)ost o':etive sho#ld 'e to ens#re that the Te7tite

6#ildin4 pro:et "o#ld 'e o)pleted. To ahieve this 4oal, the( entered into anothera4ree)ent. *'ede as7ed 9CDC to advane the a)o#nt neessar( to o)pleteonstr#tion. Its president aeded, on the a'sol#te ondition that it 'e allo"ed toesalate the ontrat prie. It "anted PRHC to allo" the esalation and to disre4ard theprohi'ition ontained in *rtile VII o! the a4ree)ents. *'ede replied that he "o#ld ta7ethis )atter #p "ith the 'oard o! diretors o! PRHC.

The 'oard o! diretors t#rned do"n the reF#est !or an esalation a4ree)ent.2 NeitherPRHC nor *'ede 4ave notie to 9CDC o! the alle4ed denial o! the proposal. Ho"ever, on1 *#4#st /11/ *'ede sent a !or)al letter to 9CDC, as7in4 !or its on!or)it(, to the eetthat sho#ld it in!#se P28 )illion into the pro:et, a ontrat prie esalation !or the sa)ea)o#nt "o#ld 'e 4ranted in its !avor '( PRHC.$

This letter "as si4ned '( *'ede a'ove the title >Constr#tion Mana4er,> as "ell as '(9CDC.% * plain readin4 o! the letter-a4ree)ent "ill reveal that the 'lan7 a'ove the "ords

>PHI9. RE*9T ; HO9DINS CORP.> "as never si4ned,8 vi=?

Ver( tr#l( (o#rs,

+Si4ned JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ DENNIS *. *6CEDEConstr#tion Mana4er

C O N O R M E ?

+Si4ned JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 9E CONST. ; DEV. CORP.

*PPROVED ; *CCEPTED ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ PHI9. RE*9T ; HO9DINS CORP.

Not"ithstandin4 the a'sene o! a si4nat#re a'ove PRHCs na)e, 9CDC proeeded "iththe onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4, expendin4 the entire a)o#nt neessar( too)plete the pro:et. ro) *#4#st to Dee)'er /11/, it in!#sed a)o#ntstotalin4 P 2


3/43

o! P 0,0$


4/43

+a Orderin4 de!endant Philrealt( to pa( plainti at#alda)a4es in the a)o#nt o!P28,333,33.33 "ith le4al interestthereon !ro) the &lin4 o! this Co)plaint #ntil !#ll( paidA

+' In the alternative, orderin4 de!endants *'ede and Santosto :ointl( and severall(, in the event that the( ated "itho#tneessar( a#thorit(, to pa( plainti at#al da)a4es in thea)o#nt o! P28,333,33.33 "ith le4al interest thereon !ro) the&lin4 o! this Co)plaint #ntil !#ll( paidA and

+ Orderin4 de!endant Philrealt( or de!endants *'ede andSantos to pa( plainti exe)plar( da)a4es in the a)o#nt to'e deter)ined '( the Honora'le Co#rt '#t not lessthanP%,333,333.33

0.0. On the !o#rth a#se o! ation, orderin4 de!endant Philrealt( to pa(plainti

+a *t#al da)a4es in the a)o#nt o! P,//0,2


5/43

It )#st 'e noted that in the Stip#lation o! ats, the parties had :ointl( a4reed thatthe P,//0,2


6/43

Pro:et 2 P %,%01,$1%.8

Total? P 03,$


7/43

Pa()ents*dvanes "itho#t 9CDCs on!or)it( and reo))endation o! theConstr#tion Mana4er, D.*. *'ede ; *ssoiates that s#':et ite)s are 9CDCsao#nt?

a. Esior, In. @ "aterproo&n4 "or7s Cl#ster 6 P/,/0/,333.33

'. Ideal Mar7etin4, In. @ "aterproo&n4 "or7s at Cl#ster 6, K#adrant0 P


8/43

8Q PaQltho#4h an oer or a4ent ats "itho#t, or in exesso!, his at#al a#thorit( i! he ats "ithin the sope o! an apparent a#thorit( "ith "hih theorporation has lothed hi) '( holdin4 hi) o#t or per)ittin4 hi) to appear as havin4s#h a#thorit(, the orporation is 'o#nd there'( in !avor o! a person "ho deals "ith hi)in 4ood !aith in reliane on s#h apparent a#thorit(, as "here an oer is allo"ed toexerise a parti#lar a#thorit( "ith respet to the '#siness, or a parti#lar 'ranh o! it,ontin#o#sl( and p#'lil(, !or a onsidera'le ti)e.> *lso, >i! a private orporationintentionall( or ne4li4entl( lothes its oers or a4ents "ith apparent po"er to per!or)ats !or it, the orporation "ill 'e estopped to den( that s#h apparent a#thorit( is real, asto innoent third persons dealin4 in 4ood !aith "ith s#h oers or a4ents.> $$

In Peoples *irar4o and Bareho#sin4 Co. In. v. Co#rt o! *ppeals, et al.,$% "e held that

apparent a#thorit( is derived not )erel( !ro) pratie?

Its existene )a( 'e asertained thro#4h +/ the 4eneral )anner in "hih the orporationholds o#t an oer or a4ent as havin4 the po"er to at or, in other "ords, the apparenta#thorit( to at in 4eneral, "ith "hih it lothes hi)A or +0 the aF#iesene in his ats o! a parti#lar nat#re, "ith at#al or onstr#tive 7no"led4e thereo!, "hether "ithin or'e(ond the sope o! his ordinar( po"ers.

Be r#le that Santos and *'ede held the)selves o#t as possessin4 the a#thorit( to at,ne4otiate and si4n do#)ents on 'ehal! o! PRHCA and that PRHC santioned these ats. It"o#ld 'e the hei4ht o! inon4r#it( to no" allo" PRHC to den( the extent o! the a#thorit("ith "hih it had lothed 'oth individ#als. Be &nd that *'edes role as onstr#tion)ana4er, "ith re4ard to the onstr#tion pro:ets, "as a7in to that o! a 4eneral )ana4er"ith re4ard to the 4eneral operations o! the orporation he or she is representin4.

ConseF#entl(, the esalation a4ree)ent entered into '( 9CDC and *'ede is a valida4ree)ent that PRHC is o'li4ated to o)pl( "ith. This esalation a4ree)ent @ "hether"ritten or ver'al @ has li!ted, thro#4h novation, the prohi'ition ontained in the Te7tite6#ildin4 *4ree)ent.

In order !or novation to ta7e plae, the on#rrene o! the !ollo"in4 reF#isites isindispensa'le?

/. There )#st 'e a previo#s valid o'li4ation.

0. The parties onerned )#st a4ree to a ne" ontrat.

2. The old ontrat )#st 'e extin4#ished.

$. There )#st 'e a valid ne" ontrat. $8

*ll the a!ore)entioned reF#isites are present in this ase. The o'li4ation o! 'oth partiesnot to inrease the ontrat prie in the Te7tite 6#ildin4 *4ree)ent "as extin4#ished, anda ne" o'li4ation inreasin4 the old ontrat prie '( P 28 )illion "as reated '( theparties to ta7e its plae.

Bhat )a7es this Co#rt 'elieve that it is inorret to allo" PRHC to esape lia'ilit( !or theesalation prie is the !at that 9CDC "as never in!or)ed o! the 'oard o! diretorss#pposed non-approval o! the esalation a4ree)ent #ntil it "as too late. Instead, PRHC,

!or its o"n 'ene&t, "aited !or the !or)er to &nish in!#sin4 the entire a)o#nt into theonstr#tion o! the '#ildin4 'e!ore in!or)in4 it that the said a4ree)ent had never 'eenapproved '( the 'oard o! diretors. 9CDC dili4entl( in!or)ed PRHC eah )onth o! thepartial a)o#nts the !or)er in!#sed into the pro:et. PRHC )#st 'e dee)ed estopped !ro)den(in4 the existene o! the esalation a4ree)ent !or havin4 allo"ed 9CDC to ontin#ein!#sin4 additional )one( spendin4 !or its o"n pro:et, "hen it o#ld have pro)ptl(noti&ed 9CDC o! the alle4ed disapproval o! the proposed esalation prie '( its 'oard o!diretors.

Estoppel is an eF#ita'le priniple rooted in nat#ral :#stieA it is )eant to prevent persons!ro) 4oin4 'a7 on their o"n ats and representations, to the pre:#die o! others "hohave relied on the).$ *rtile /$2/ o! the Civil Code provides?

Thro#4h estoppel an ad)ission or representation is rendered onl#sive #pon the person)a7in4 it, and annot 'e denied or disproved as a4ainst the person rel(in4 thereon.

*rtile /$2/ is reGeted in R#le /2/, Setion 0 +a o! the R#les o! Co#rt, vi=.?

Se. 0. Conl#sive pres#)ptions. The !ollo"in4 are instanes o! onl#sivepres#)ptions?

+a Bhenever a part( has '( his o"n delaration, at or o)ission, intentionall( anddeli'eratel( led another to 'elieve a parti#lar thin4 tr#e, and to at #pon s#h 'elie!, heannot, in an( liti4ation arisin4 o#t o! s#h delaration, at or o)ission 'e per)itted to!alsi!( it.

This Co#rt has identi&ed the ele)ents o! estoppel as?

Qirst, the ator "ho #s#all( )#st have 7no"led4e, notie or s#spiion o! the tr#e !ats,o))#niates so)ethin4 to another in a )isleadin4 "a(, either '( "ords, ond#t orsileneA seond, the other in !at relies, and relies reasona'l( or :#sti&a'l(, #pon thato))#niationA third, the other "o#ld 'e har)ed )ateriall( i! the ator is later per)ittedto assert an( lai) inonsistent "ith his earlier ond#tA and !o#rth, the ator 7no"s,expets or !oresees that the other "o#ld at #pon the in!or)ation 4iven or that areasona'le person in the ators position "o#ld expet or !oresee s#h ation.$<

This lia'ilit( o! PRHC, ho"ever, has a eilin4. The esalation a4ree)ent entered into "as!or P 28 )illionthe )axi)#) a)o#nt that 9CDC ontrated itsel! to in!#se and thatPRHC a4reed to rei)'#rse. Th#s, the Co#rt o! *ppeals "as orret in r#lin4 thatthe P 0,0$


9/43

Ln:#st enrih)ent exists >"hen a person #n:#stl( retains a 'ene&t to the loss o! another,or "hen a person retains )one( or propert( o! another a4ainst the !#nda)ental prinipleso! :#stie, eF#it( and 4ood onsiene.> $1 Lnder *rt. 00 o! the Civil Code, there is #n:#stenrih)ent "hen +/ a person is #n:#stl( 'ene&ted, and +0 s#h 'ene&t is derived at theexpense o! or "ith da)a4es to another.%3 The ter) is !#rther de&ned th#s?

Ln:#st enrih)ent is a ter) #sed to depit res#lt or eet o! !ail#re to )a7e re)#nerationo! or !or propert( or 'ene&ts reeived #nder ir#)stanes that 4ive rise to le4al oreF#ita'le o'li4ation to ao#nt !or the)A to 'e entitled to re)#neration, one )#st on!er'ene&t '( )ista7e, !ra#d, oerion, or reF#est.%/

In order !or an #n:#st enrih)ent lai) to prosper, one )#st not onl( prove that the otherpart( 'ene&ted !ro) ones eorts or the o'li4ations o! othersA it )#st also 'e sho"n thatthe other part( "as #n:#stl( enrihed in the sense that the ter) >#n:#stl(> o#ld )ean>ille4all(> or >#nla"!#ll(.>%0 9CDC "as a"are that the esalation a4ree)ent "as li)itedto P28 )illion. It is not entitled to re)#neration o! the exess, sine it did not on!er this'ene&t '( )ista7e, !ra#d, oerion, or reF#est. Rather, it vol#ntaril( in!#sed the exessa)o#nt "ith !#ll 7no"led4e that PRHC had no o'li4ation to rei)'#rse it.

Parenthetiall(, "e note that the C* had r#led that the Dee)'er /110 letterde)onstrates that PRHC treated the P 28 )illion as a loan ded#ti'le !ro) the liF#idatedda)a4es !or "hih 9CDC is s#pposedl( lia'le.%2 It r#led that "hen PRHC in!or)ed 9CDCthat it "o#ld appl( the P 28 )illion to the liF#idated da)a4es, PRHC, in eet,a7no"led4ed that it "as in de't to 9CDC in the a)o#nt o! P 28 )illion, and that !or)sthe 'asis !or PRHCs lia'ilit( to 9CDC !or the said a)o#nt.

Be disa4ree "ith this anal(sis.

In a ontrat o! loan, o"nership o! the )one( is trans!erred !ro) the lender to the'orro"er.%$ In this ase, o"nership o! the P 28 )illion "as never trans!erred to PRHC. *sprevio#sl( )entioned, s#h a)o#nt "as paid diretl( to the s#ppliers. %% Be &nd thatarran4e)ent 'et"een PRHC and 9CDC annot 'e onstr#ed as a loan a4ree)ent '#trather, it "as an a4ree)ent to advane the osts o! onstr#tion. In Liwanag v. Court of

Appeals et al., "e state?

Neither an the transation 'e onsidered a loan, sine in a ontrat o! loan one the)one( is reeived '( the de'tor, o"nership over the sa)e is trans!erred. 6ein4 theo"ner, the 'orro"er an dispose o! it !or "hatever p#rpose he )a( dee) proper. In theinstant petition, ho"ever, it is evident that 9i"ana4 o#ld not dispose o! the )one( as shepleased 'ea#se it "as onl( delivered to her !or a sin4le p#rpose, na)el(, !or thep#rhase o! i4arettes, and i! this "as not possi'le then to ret#rn the )one( to Rosales.

9CDC is not lia'le !or liF#idated da)a4es !or dela( in the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4s !orPRHC.

There is no F#estion that 9CDC "as not a'le to !#ll( onstr#t the Te7tite 6#ildin4 andPro:ets /, 0, and 2 on ti)e. It reasons that it sho#ld not 'e )ade lia'le !or liF#idatedda)a4es, 'ea#se its ri4ht!#l and reasona'le reF#ests !or ti)e extension "ere denied '(PRHC.%8

It is i)portant to note that PRHC does not F#estion the verait( o! the !at#alrepresentations o! 9CDC to :#sti!( the latters reF#ests !or extension o! ti)e. It insists,ho"ever, that in an( event 9CDC a4reed to the li)its o! the ti)e extensions it 4ranted. %

The pratie o! the parties is that eah ti)e 9CDC reF#ests !or )ore ti)e, an extensiona4ree)ent is exe#ted and si4ned '( 'oth parties to indiate their :oint approval o! then#)'er o! da(s o! extension a4reed #pon.

The applia'le provision in the parties a4ree)ents is as !ollo"s?

*RTIC9E VII @ TIME O COMP9ETION

. . . . . . . . .

Sho#ld the "or7 'e dela(ed '( an( at or o)ission o! the OBNER or an( other persone)plo(ed '( or ontrated '( the OBNER in the pro:et, inl#din4 da(s in the deliver( or+si )aterials !#rnished '( the OBNER or others, or '( an( appreia'le additions oralterations in the "or7 ordered '( the OBNER or the *RCHITECT, #nder *rtile V or '(!ore )a:e#re, "ar, re'ellion, stri7es, epide)is, &res, riots, or ats o! the ivil or )ilitar(a#thorities, the CONTR*CTOR shall 'e 4ranted ti)e extension.

In ase the CONTR*CTOR eno#nters an( :#sti&a'le a#se or reason !or dela(, theCONTR*CTOR shall "ithin ten +/3 da(s, a!ter eno#nterin4 s#h a#se o! dela( s#')it tothe OBNER in "ritin4 a "ritten reF#est !or ti)e extension indiatin4 therein thereF#ested ontrat ti)e extension. ail#re '( the CONTR*CTOR to o)pl( "ith thisreF#ire)ents +si "ill 'e adeF#ate reason !or the OBNER not to 4rant the ti)eextension.1avvphi1

The !ollo"in4 ta'le sho"s the dates o! 9CDCs letter-reF#ests, the s#pposed a#ses :#sti!(in4 the), the n#)'er o! da(s reF#ested, and the n#)'er o! da(s 4ranted '( PRHCand s#pposedl( on!or)ed to '( 9CDC?

1avvphi1

Ca#se o! da(s reF#ested o! da(s4ranted

/ Mar/113

D#e to additional "or7s andshorta4e o! s#pplies and e)ent

23 //

/$ *pr/113

Shorta4e o! e)ent s#ppl( /< 8

/3 Ma(/113

reF#ent po"er !ail#res /3 0

1 5#l /1136ad "eather "hih endan4ered

the lives o! the onstr#tion"or7ers +>heav( "inds>

/3 0

$ Sep/113

Inle)ent "eather thatendan4ered the lives o! the

onstr#tion "or7ers/3 2

0< e'/11/

*rhitet#ral and str#t#ralrevisions o! R.C. 'ea)s at the


10/43

/11/

revisions in the plans initiated '(the arhitet and *'edes dela(

in 4ivin4 the revised plans toontrator

8

0 Sep/11/

Inle)ent "eather and sarit(o! e)ent

0% /

/2 Ot/11/

Bater s#ppl( interr#ption andpo"er !ail#res preventin4 the

)ixin4 o! e)ent

/% 8

% De/11/

T(phoon Lrin4 and "ater s#ppl(interr#ption +t(phoon Lrin4

alone a#sed a dela( !or )orethan /3 da(s d#e to stron4 and

ontin#o#s rains

/% 0

0 *pr/110

InadeF#ate s#ppl( o! Portlande)ent and !reF#ent po"er

!ail#res/% /0

% Ma(/110

InadeF#ate s#ppl( o! e)entand !reF#ent po"er !ail#res

/ /0

$%8 0/

additions and alterations in the"or7 ordered '( the o"ner and

arhitet/3< 03

%8$02

*s previo#sl( )entioned, 9CDC sent a 1 Dee)'er /110 letter to PRHC lai)in4 that, in aperiod o! over t"o (ears, onl( 0%8 o#t o! the 8/< da(s o! extension reF#ested "ereonsidered. Be disre4ard these n#)'ers presented '( 9CDC 'ea#se o! its !ail#re topresent evidene to prove its alle4ation. The tall( that "e "ill aeptas reGeted '( the

evidene s#')itted to the lo"er o#rtis as !ollo"s? o#t o! the %8$ da(s reF#ested, onl(02 "ere onsidered.

Essentiall( the sa)e a!ore)entioned reasons or a#ses are presented '( 9CDC asde!ense a4ainst lia'ilit( !or 'oth Pro:ets / and 0. %


11/43

K? So, Mr. Bitness in all those reF#ests !or extension and "henever the D.*. *'ede ;*ssoiates did not 4rant (o# the at#al n#)'er o! da(s stated in (o#r reF#ests !orextension, "hat did 9e( onstr#tion and Develop)ent do, i! an(U

*? Be tal7ed to Dennis *'ede and Mr. Santos, Maa).

K? *nd "hat did (o# tell the)U

*? I "ill tell the) "h( did (o# not 4rant the extension !or #s, Maa).

K? Bhat "as the response o! Mr. *'ede and Mr. SantosU

*? Mr. *'ede and Mr. Santos told )e, Mr. 9e( dont "orr(, (o# "ill not 'e liF#idated o!an( sin4le da( !or this 'ea#se "e an see that (o# "or7ed so hard !or this pro:et,Maa).

K? *nd "hat did (o# do a!ter (o# "ere 4iven that response o! Mr. *'ede and Mr. SantosU

*? The( told )e (o# :#st relax and &nish the pro:et, and "e "ill pa( (o# #p to the lastentavos, Maa).

K? Bhat did (o# do a!ter ta7in4 that state)ent or ass#raneU

*? *s 4entle)ans a4ree)ent I :#st ontin#ed "or7in4 "itho#t o)plainin4 an()ore,Maa).88

The a'ove testi)on( is #nontradited. Even ass#)in4 that all the reasons 9CDCpresented do not F#ali!( as !ort#ito#s events, as onte)plated '( la", this Co#rt &ndsthat PRHC is estopped !ro) den(in4 that it had 4ranted a "aiver o! the liF#idatedda)a4es the latter orporation )a( ollet !ro) the !or)er d#e to a dela( in theonstr#tion o! an( o! the '#ildin4s.

Co#rts )a( r#le on a#ses o! ation not inl#ded in the Co)plaint, as lon4 as these have'een proven d#rin4 trial "itho#t the o':etion o! the opposin4 part(.

PRHC ar4#es that sine the parties had alread( li)ited the iss#es to those reGeted in

their :oint stip#lation o! !ats, neither the trial o#rt nor the appellate o#rt has thea#thorit( to r#le #pon iss#es not inl#ded therein. Th#s it "as "ron4 !or the trial o#rt andthe C* to have a"arded the a)o#nts o! P %,%01,$1%.8 representin4 the re)ainin4'alane !or Pro:et 2 as "ell as !or the P 020,28.18 representin4 the 'alane !or theonstr#tion o! the drivers F#arters in Pro:et 2. PRHC lai)s that in the Stip#lation o!ats, all the iss#es re4ardin4 Pro:et 2 "ere alread( )ade part o! the o)p#tation o! the'alanes !or the other pro:ets. It th#s ar4#es that the o)p#tation !or the Te7tite 6#ildin4sho"ed that the overpa()ent !or Pro:et 2 in the a)o#nt o! P 1,%2/,/


12/43

>*rt. /


13/43

BHEREORE, "e SET *SIDE the Deision o! the Co#rt o! *ppeals and RL9E as !ollo"s?

I. Be &nd Philippine Realt( and Holdin4s Corporation +PRHC 9I*69E to 9e( Constr#tionDevelop)ent Corporation +9CDC in the a)o#nt o! P 8$,301,/3.00, detailed as !ollo"s?

/. P /2,0%/,/%0.8/ as 'alane (et #npaid '( PRHC !or Pro:et 0A

0. P /,32,1%%.3 as 'alane (et #npaid '( PRHC !or Pro:et /A

2. P %,%01,$1%.8 as 'alane (et #npaid '( PRHC !or Pro:et 2A

$. P 020,28.18 as 'alane (et #npaid '( PRHC !or the driversF#arters !or Pro:et 2A

%. P 28,333,333.33 as a4reed #pon in the esalation a4ree)ententered into '( PRHCs representatives and 9CDC !or the Te7tite6#ildin4A

8. P ,//0,2


14/43

Her de)and havin4 'een #nheeded, Tanseo &led on 5#ne %, 0330 "ith the Ho#sin4 and

9and Lse Re4#lator( 6oards +H9LR6 Expanded National Capital Re4ion ield Oe a

o)plaint a4ainst Me4a"orld !or resission o! ontrat, re!#nd o! pa()ent, and da)a4es. %

In its *ns"er, Me4a"orld attri'#ted the dela( to the /11 *sian &nanial risis "hih "as

'e(ond its ontrolA and ar4#ed that de!a#lt had not set in, Tanseo not havin4 )ade an(

:#diial or extra:#diial de)and !or deliver( 'e!ore reeipt o! the notie o! t#rnover.8

6( Deision o! Ma( 0


15/43

The Co#rt annot 4enerali=e the /11 *sian &nanial risis to 'e #n!oreseea'le and

'e(ond the ontrol o! a '#siness orporation. * real estate enterprise en4a4ed in the pre-

sellin4 o! ondo)ini#) #nits is onededl( a )aster in pro:etions on o))odities and

#rren( )ove)ents, as "ell as '#siness ris7s. The G#t#atin4 )ove)ent o! the

Philippine peso in the !orei4n exhan4e )ar7et is an ever(da( o#rrene, hene, not an

instane o! aso !ort#ito./1 Me4a"orlds ex#se !or its dela( does not th#s lie.

*s !or Me4a"orlds ar4#)ent that Tanseos lai) is onsidered 'arred '( lahes on

ao#nt o! her 'elated de)and, it does not lie too. 9ahes is a reation o! eF#it( and its

appliation is ontrolled '( eF#ita'le onsiderations.03 It 'ears notin4 that Tanseo

reli4io#sl( paid all the install)ents d#e #p to 5an#ar(, /11


16/43

deision o! 6ranh %% o! the Re4ional Trial Co#rt o! Manila, reversin4 that o! 6ranh /2 o! the Metropolitan Trial Co#rt o! Manila, "hih !avora'l( ated in the e:et)ent ase. 6othpetitions involve the sa)e parties.

C#lled !ro) the reords on hand, the !ats 4ivin4 rise to the t"o ases are as!ollo"s?

On 5#ne


17/43

e'r#ar( %, /1


18/43

On 5#ne 23, /1


19/43

Re!or)ation is that re)ed( in eF#it( '( )eans o! "hih a "ritten instr#)ent is)ade or onstr#ed so as to express or on!or) to the real intention o! the parties. 0%Q *s toits nat#re, in To(ota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Co#rt o! *ppeals, 08Q the Co#rt said?

*n ation !or re!or)ation is in persona), not in re), xxx even "hen real estate isinvolved. xxx It is )erel( an eF#ita'le relie! 4ranted to the parties "here thro#4h )ista7eor !ra#d, the instr#)ent !ailed to express the real a4ree)ent or intention o! theparties. Bhile it is a reo4ni=ed re)ed( aorded '( o#rts o! eF#it( it )a( not 'e appliedi! it is ontrar( to "ell-settled priniples or r#les. It is a lon4-standin4 priniple that eF#it(!ollo"s the la". It is applied in the a'sene o! and never a4ainst stat#tor( la". xxx Co#rtsare 'o#nd '( r#les o! la" and have no ar'itrar( disretion to disre4ard the). xxx Co#rts

o! eF#it( )#st proeed "ith o#t)ost a#tion espeiall( "hen ri4hts o! third parties )a(intervene. xxx.

*rtile /2%1 o! the Civil Code provides that +"hen, there havin4 'een a )eetin4 o! the )inds o! the parties to a ontrat, their tr#e intention is not expressed in theinstr#)ent p#rportin4 to e)'od( the a4ree)ent, '( reason o! )ista7e, !ra#d, ineF#ita'leond#t or aident, one o! the parties )a( as7 !or the re!or)ation o! the instr#)ent tothe end that s#h intention )a( 'e expressed. xxx. *n ation !or re!or)ation o! instr#)ent #nder this provision o! la" )a( prosper onl( #pon the on#rrene o! the!ollo"in4 reF#isites? +/ there )#st have 'een a )eetin4 o! the )inds o! the parties to theontatA +0 the instr#)ent does not express the tr#e intention o! the partiesA and +2 the!ail#re o! the instr#)ent to express the tr#e intention o! the parties is d#e to )ista7e,!ra#d, ineF#ita'le ond#t or aident. 0Q

The )eetin4 o! the )inds 'et"een H#i'onhoa, on the one hand, and the o:oos,

on the other, is )ani!est in the "ritten lease ontrat d#l( exe#ted '( the). The s#esso! the ation !or re!or)ation o! the ontrat o! lease at 'ar sho#ld there!ore, depend onthe presene o! the t"o other reF#isites a!ore)entioned.

To prove that the lease ontrat does not evine the tr#e intention o! the parties,spei&all( as re4ards the ti)e "hen H#i'onhoa sho#ld start pa(in4 rents, she presentedas a "itness one o! the lessors, R#&na . 9i), "ho testi&ed that prior to the exe#tion o! the lease ontrat on 5#ne 23, /1


20/43

that re)ed( in eF#it( '( )eans o! "hih a "ritten instr#)ent is )ade or onstr#ed so asto express or on!or) to the real intention o! the parties. In 4rantin4 re!or)ation,there!ore, eF#it( is not reall( )a7in4 a ne" ontrat !or the parties, '#t is on&r)in4 andperpet#atin4 the real ontrat 'et"een the parties "hih, #nder the tehnial r#les o! la",o#ld not 'e en!ored '#t !or s#h re!or)ation. *s aptl( o'served '( the CodeCo))ission, the rationale o! the dotrine is that it "o#ld 'e #n:#st and ineF#ita'le toallo" the en!ore)ent o! a "ritten instr#)ent "hih does not reGet or dislose the real)eetin4 o! the )inds o! the parties.

6( 'rin4in4 an ation !or the re!or)ation o! s#':et lease ontrat, H#i'onhoa hose tore!or) the instr#)ent and not the ontrat itsel!.2%Q She is th#s prel#ded !ro) insertin4

stip#lations that are not extant in the lease ontrat itsel! lest the ver( a4ree)ente)'odied in the instr#)ent is altered.

Neither does the Co#rt &nd )erit in her s#')ission that the assassination o! the lateSenator 6eni4no *F#ino, 5r. "as a !ort#ito#s event that :#sti&ed a )odi&ation o! theter)s o! the lease ontrat.

* !ort#ito#s event is that "hih o#ld not 'e !oreseen, or "hih even i! !oreseen,"as inevita'le. To exe)pt the o'li4or !ro) lia'ilit( !or a 'reah o! an o'li4ation d#e to anat o! od, the !ollo"in4 reF#isites )#st on#r? +a the a#se o! the 'reah o! theo'li4ation )#st 'e independent o! the "ill o! the de'torA +' the event )#st 'e either#n!oreseea'le or #navoida'leA + the event )#st 'e s#h as to render it i)possi'le !orthe de'tor to !#l&ll his o'li4ation in a nor)al )annerA and +d the de'tor )#st 'e !ree!ro) an( partiipation in, or a44ravation o! the in:#r( to the reditor. 28Q

In the ase #nder sr#tin(, the assassination o! Senator *F#ino )a( indeed 'e

onsidered a !ort#ito#s event. Ho"ever, the said inident per se o#ld not have a#sedthe dela( in the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4. Bhat )i4ht have a#sed the dela( "as theres#ltin4 esalation o! pries o! o))odities inl#din4 onstr#tion )aterials. 6e that asit )a(, there is no )erit in H#i'onhoas ar4#)ent that the inGation 'orne '( the ilipinosin /1


21/43

"as held that no novation o! a ontrat had o#rred "hen the ne" a4ree)ent enteredinto 'et"een the parties "as intended to 4ive li!e to the old one. %/Q ivin4 li!e to theontrat "as the ver( p#rpose !or "hih R#&na . 9i) si4ned the a4ree)ent on 5an#ar(2/, /1


22/43

Detainer, 'ein4 a )ere F#ietin4 proess, F#estions raised on real propert( are inidentall(dis#ssed. In !at, an( evidene o! o"nership is expressl( 'anned '( Se. $, R#le 3exept to resolve the F#estion o! possession. Th#s, all that the o#rt )a( do, is to )a7ean initial deter)ination o! "ho is the o"ner o! the propert( so that it an resolve "ho isentitled to its possession a'sent other evidene to resolve the latter. 6#t s#hdeter)ination o! o"nership is not lothed "ith &nalit(. Neither "ill it aet o"nership o!the propert( nor onstit#te a 'indin4 and onl#sive ad:#diation on the )erits "ithrespet to the iss#e o! o"nership. x x x.

The Co#rt has onsistentl( held that in !ori'le entr( and #nla"!#l detainer ases, :#risdition is deter)ined '( the nat#re o! the ation as pleaded in the o)plaint.82Q The

test o! the s#ien( o! the !ats alle4ed in the o)plaint is "hether or not ad)ittin4 the!ats alle4ed therein, the o#rt o#ld render a valid :#d4)ent #pon the sa)e inaordane "ith the pra(er o! the plainti. 8$Q

In an e:et)ent ase, or spei&all( in an ation !or #nla"!#l detainer li7e thepresent ase, it s#es to alle4e that the de!endant is #nla"!#ll( "ithholdin4 possessiono! the propert( in F#estion.8%Q * o)plaint !or #nla"!#l detainer is there!ore s#ient i! italle4es that the "ithholdin4 o! possession or the re!#sal to vaate is #nla"!#l "itho#tneessaril( e)plo(in4 the ter)inolo4( o! the la". 88Q It is there!ore in order to )a7e aninF#ir( into the aver)ents o! the o)plaint in Civil Case No. 13-%$%%.8Q The o)plaint,that "as alled one !or anellation o! lease, e:et)ent and olletion, alle4ed the!ollo"in4 !ats?

/. The parties are residents o! dierent 'aran4a(s and there!ore the provisionso! P.D. No. /%3< +the la" on the 7atar#n4an4 pa)'aran4a( areinapplia'leA

0. The plaintis, R#&na . 9i), Severino o:oo and 9oreta o:oo Ch#a arethe re4istered o"ners o! three parels o! o))erial land in Ila(a Street,6inondo, Manila.

2. On 5#ne 23, /1


23/43

"ritten de)ands to pa( rental arreara4es and to vaate the leased pre)ises, ontin#edre!#sal o! the lessees to s#rrender possession o! the pre)ises, and the !at that the ation"as &led "ithin one (ear !ro) de)and to vaate.

* readin4 o! the alle4ations o! the o)plaint and the relie!s pra(ed !or indeedreveals !ats that appear to 'e extraneo#s to the pri)ar( ai) o! reoverin4 possession o! propert( in an ation !or #nla"!#l detainer altho#4h these !ats do not involve iss#e o! o"nership o! the pre)ises. Th#s, onsonant "ith the alle4ation that de!endant "asleasin4 the spaes in the '#ildin4 to the t#ne o! )illions o! peso, plaintis pra( !or aninrease in )onthl( rentals to P83,333.33 a )onth startin4 e'r#ar( %, /1


24/43

EDERICO LAREANO, AIDA DE LAREANO n JANITO LAREANO, de!endants-

appellants.

"edro #. #io$uino in his own ehalf.

Arturo E. %aldo&ero' Jose L. Al&ario and Rolando (. Relova for defendants)appellants.

ERNANDO, J.:

The present la"s#it had its ori4in in a relationship, i! it o#ld 'e alled s#h, the #se o! a

ar o"ned '( plainti Pedro D. DioF#ino '( de!endant ederio 9a#reano, learl( o! a

harater as#al and te)porar( '#t #n!ort#natel( )arried '( an o#rrene res#ltin4 in

its "indshield 'ein4 da)a4ed. * stone thro"n '( a 'o( "ho, "ith his other o)panions,

"as th#s en4a4ed in "hat #ndo#'tedl( !or the) )#st have 'een )ista7enl( tho#4ht to

'e a none too har)!#l pran7 did not )iss its )ar7. Plainti "o#ld hold de!endant ederio

9a#reano ao#nta'le !or the loss th#s s#stained, inl#din4 in the ation &led the "i!e,

*ida de 9a#reano, and the !ather, 5#anito 9a#reano. Plainti prevail in the lo"er o#rt, the

:#d4)ent ho"ever 4oin4 onl( a4ainst the prinipal de!endant, his spo#se and his !ather

'ein4 a'solved o! an( responsi'ilit(. Nonetheless, all three o! the) appealed diretl( to

#s, raisin4 t"o F#estions o! la", the &rst 'ein4 the !ail#re o! the lo"er o#rt to dis)iss

s#h a s#it as no lia'ilit( o#ld have 'een in#rred as a res#lt o! a !ort#ito#s event andthe other 'ein4 its !ail#re to a"ard da)a4es a4ainst plainti !or the #n"arranted inl#sion

o! the "i!e and the !ather in this liti4ation. Be a4ree that the lo"er o#rt o#4ht to have

dis)issed the s#it, '#t it does not !ollo" that there'( da)a4es !or the inl#sion o! the

a'ove t"o other parties in the o)plaint sho#ld have 'een a"arded appellants.

The !ats as !o#nd '( the lo"er o#rt !ollo"? >*ttorne( Pedro DioF#ino, a pratiin4 la"(er

o! Mas'ate, is the o"ner o! a ar. On Marh 2/, /18$, he "ent to the oe o! the MVO,

Mas'ate, to re4ister the sa)e. He )et the de!endant ederio 9a#reano, a patrol oer o!

said MVO oe, "ho "as "aitin4 !or a :eepne( to ta7e hi) to the oe o! the Provinial

Co))ander, PC, Mas'ate. *ttorne( DioF#ino reF#ested the de!endant ederio 9a#reano

to introd#e hi) to one o! the ler7s in the MVO Oe, "ho o#ld !ailitate the

re4istration o! his ar and the reF#est "as 4raio#sl( attended to. De!endant 9a#reano

rode on the ar o! *tt(. DioF#ino on his "a( to the P.C. 6arra7s at Mas'ate. Bhile a'o#t

to reah their destination, the ar driven '( plaintis driver and "ith de!endant ederio

9a#reano as the sole passen4er "as stoned '( so)e )ishievo#s 'o(s, and its

"indshield "as 'ro7en. De!endant ederio 9a#reano hased the 'o(s and he "as a'le to

ath one o! the). The 'o( "as ta7en to *tt(. DioF#ino andQ ad)itted havin4 thro"n the

stone that 'ro7e the ars "indshield. The plainti and the de!endant ederio 9a#reano

"ith the 'o( ret#rned to the P.C. 'arra7s and the !ather o! the 'o( "as alled, '#t no

satis!ator( arran4e)ents "ereQ )ade a'o#t the da)a4e to the

"indshield.> 1

It "as li7e"ise noted in the deision no" on appeal? >The de!endant ederio 9a#reano

re!#sed to &le an( har4es a4ainst the 'o( and his parents 'ea#se he tho#4ht that the

stone-thro"in4 "as )erel( aidental and that it "as d#e to force &a!eure. So he did not

"ant to ta7e an( ation and a!ter dela(in4 the settle)ent, a!ter perhaps ons#ltin4 a

la"(er, the de!endant ederio 9a#reano re!#sed to pa( the "indshield hi)sel! andhallen4ed that the ase 'e 'ro#4ht to o#rt !or :#diial ad:#diation. There is no F#estion

that the plainti tried to onvine the de!endant ederio 9a#reano :#st to pa( the val#e

o! the "indshield and he even a)e to the extent o! as7in4 the "i!e to onvine her

h#s'and to settle the )atter a)ia'l( '#t the de!endant ederio 9a#reano re!#sed to

)a7e an( settle)ent, lin4in4 toQ the 'elie! that he o#ld not 'e held lia'le 'ea#se a

)inor hild thre" a stone aidentall( on the "indshield and there!ore, the sa)e "as d#e

to force &a!eure.> 2

/. The la" 'ein4 "hat it is, s#h a 'elie! on the part o! de!endant ederio 9a#reano "as

:#sti&ed. The express lan4#a4e o! *rt. //$ o! the present Civil Code "hih is a

restate)ent o! *rt. //3% o! the Old Civil Code, exept !or the addition o! the nat#re o! an

o'li4ation reF#irin4 the ass#)ption o! ris7, o)pels s#h a onl#sion. It reads th#s?>Exept in ases expressl( spei&ed '( the la", or "hen it is other"ise delared '(

stip#lation, or "hen the nat#re o! the o'li4ation reF#ires the ass#)ption o! ris7, no person

shall 'e responsi'le !or those events "hih o#ld not 'e, !oreseen, or "hih, tho#4h

!oreseen "ere inevita'le.> Even #nder the old Civil Code then, as stressed '( #s in the

&rst deision datin4 'a7 to /13no one sho#ld 'e held to

ao#nt !or !ort#ito#s ases.> 3 Its 'asis, as 5#stie Moreland stressed, is the Ro)an la"

priniple &a!or casus est' cui hu&ana in*r&itas resistere non potest . 4 *#thorities o!

rep#te are in a4ree)ent, )ore spei&all( onernin4 an o'li4ation arisin4 !ro) ontrat

>that so)e extraordinar( ir#)stane independent o! the "ill o! the o'li4or, or o! his

e)plo(ees, is an essential ele)ent o! a caso fortuito.> 5 I! it o#ld 'e sho"n that s#h

indeed "as the ase, lia'ilit( is r#led o#t. There is no reF#ire)ent o! >dili4ene 'e(ond

"hat h#)an are and !oresi4ht an provide.> 6

The error o))itted '( the lo"er o#rt in holdin4 de!endant ederio 9a#reano lia'le

appears to 'e th#s o'vio#s. Its o"n &ndin4s o! !at repel the )otion that he sho#ld 'e

)ade to respond in da)a4es to the plainti !or the 'ro7en "indshield. Bhat happened

"as learl( #n!oreseen. It "as a !ort#ito#s event res#ltin4 in a loss "hih )#st 'e 'orne

'( the o"ner o! the ar. *n ele)ent o! reasona'leness in the la" "o#ld 'e )ani!estl(

la7in4 i!, on the ir#)stanes as th#s dislosed, le4al responsi'ilit( o#ld 'e i)p#ted to

an individ#al in the sit#ation o! de!endant 9a#reano. *rt. //$ o! the Civil Code 4#ards

a4ainst the possi'ilit( o! its 'ein4 visited "ith s#h a reproah. Ln!ort#natel(, the lo"er

o#rt "as o! a dierent )ind and th#s !ailed to heed its o))and.

It "as )isled, apparentl(, '( the inl#sion o! the exe)ption !ro) the operation o! s#h a

provision o! a part( ass#)in4 the ris7, onsiderin4 the nat#re o! the o'li4ation

#nderta7en. * )ore are!#l anal(sis "o#ld have led the lo"er o#rt to a dierent and

orret interpretation. The ver( "ordin4 o! the la" dispels an( do#'t that "hat is therein

onte)plated is the res#ltin4 lia'ilit( even i! a#sed '( a !ort#ito#s event "here the part(

har4ed )a( 'e onsidered as havin4 ass#)ed the ris7 inident in the nat#re o! the

o'li4ation to 'e per!or)ed. It "o#ld 'e an aront, not onl( to the lo4i '#t to the realities

o! the sit#ation, i! in the li4ht o! "hat transpired, as !o#nd '( the lo"er o#rt, de!endant

ederio 9a#reano o#ld 'e held as 'o#nd to ass#)e a ris7 o! this nat#re. There "as no

s#h o'li4ation on his part.

Re!erene to the leadin4 ase o! Repulic v. Lu+on (tevedoring Corp. # "ill ill#strate "hen

the nat#re o! the o'li4ation is s#h that the ris7 o#ld 'e onsidered as havin4 'een

ass#)ed. *s noted in the opinion o! 5#stie 5.6.9. Re(es, spea7in4 !or the Co#rt? >The

appellant stron4l( stresses the prea#tions ta7en '( it on the da( in F#estion? that it

assi4ned t"o o! its )ost po"er!#l t#4'oats to to" do"n river its 'ar4e 9-/


25/43

to"lines, en4ines and eF#ip)ent do#'le-he7ed and inspetedA that it instr#ted

its patrons to ta7e extra-prea#tionsA and onl#des that it had done all it "as alled to

do, and that the aident, there!ore, sho#ld 'e held d#e to !ore )a:e#re or !ort#ito#s

event.> Its next para4raph explained learl( "h( the de!ense o! caso fortuito or force

&a!eure does not lie. Th#s? >These ver( prea#tions, ho"ever, o)pletel( destro( the

appellants de!ense. or caso fortuito or force &a!eure +"hih in la" are idential in so !ar

as the( exe)pt an o'li4or !ro) lia'ilit( '( de&nition, are extraordinar( events not

!oreseea'le or avoida'le, events that o#ld not 'e !oreseen, or "hih, tho#4h !oreseen,

"ere inevita'le +*rt. //$, Civil Code o! the Philippines. It is, there!ore, not eno#4h that

the event sho#ld not have 'een !oreseen or partiipated, as is o))onl( 'elieved, '#t it

)#st 'e one i)possi'le to !oresee or to avoid. The )ere di#lt( to !oresee thehappenin4 is not i)possi'ilit( to !oresee the sa)e? #n heho no onstit#(e aso !ort#ito

por la sola ir#nstania de F#e s# existenia ha4a )as di&il o )as onerosa la aion

dili4ente del presente o!ensor +Peirano aio, Responsiilidad E,tra)contractual' p. $8%A

Ma=ea#d, -raite de la Responsiilite Civile, Vol. 0, se. /%81. The ver( )eas#res adopted

'( appellant prove that the possi'ilit( o! dan4er "as not onl( !oreseea'le, '#t at#all(

!oreseen, and "as not caso fortuito.>

In that ase then, the ris7 "as F#ite evident and the nat#re o! the o'li4ation s#h that a

part( o#ld ri4ht!#ll( 'e dee)ed as havin4 ass#)ed it. It is not so in the ase 'e!ore #s. It

is an(thin4 '#t that. I! the lo"er o#rt, there!ore, "ere d#l( )ind!#l o! "hat this parti#lar

le4al provision onte)plates, it o#ld not have reahed the onl#sion that de!endant

ederio 9a#reano o#ld 'e held lia'le. To repeat, that "as lear error on its part.

0. *ppellants do not stop there. It does not s#e !or the) that de!endant ederio

9a#reano "o#ld 'e !reed !ro) lia'ilit(. The( "o#ld 4o !arther. The( "o#ld ta7e plainti to

tas7 !or his o)plaint havin4 :oined the "i!e, *ida de 9a#reano, and the !ather, 5#anita

9a#reano. The( "ere !ar !ro) satis&ed "ith the lo"er o#rts a'solvin4 these t"o !ro)

an( &nanial responsi'ilit(. *ppellants "o#ld have plainti pa( da)a4es !or their inl#sion

in this liti4ation. Be are not disposed to vie" the )atter th#s.

It is to 'e ad)itted, o! o#rse, that plainti, "ho is a )e)'er o! the 'ar, o#4ht to have

exerised 4reater are in seletin4 the parties a4ainst "ho) he "o#ld proeed. It )a( 'e

said that his vie" o! the la" that "o#ld onsider de!endant ederio 9a#reano lia'le on

the !ats as th#s dislosed, "hile erroneo#s, is not 'ere!t o! pla#si'ilit(. Even the lo"er

o#rt, )ista7enl( o! o#rse, entertained si)ilar vie". or plainti, ho"ever, to have

inl#ded the "i!e and the !ather "o#ld see) to indiate that his #nderstandin4 o! the la"

is not all that it o#4ht to have 'een.

Plainti apparentl( "as not entirel( #na"are that the inl#sion in the s#it &led '( hi) "as

harateri=ed '( #northodox(. He did atte)pt to lend so)e olor o! :#sti&ation '(

expliitl( settin4 !orth that the !ather "as :oined as part( de!endant in the ase as he "as

the ad)inistrator o! the inheritane o! an #ndivided propert( to "hih de!endant ederio

9a#reano o#ld la( lai) and that the "i!e "as li7e"ise proeeded a4ainst 'ea#se the

on:#4al partnership "o#ld 'e )ade to respond !or "hatever lia'ilit( "o#ld 'e

ad:#diated a4ainst the h#s'and.

It annot 'e said that s#h an atte)pt at :#sti&ation is i)pressed "ith a hi4h pers#asive

F#alit(. ar !ro) it. Nonetheless, )ista7en as plainti apparentl( "as, it annot 'e

onl#ded that he "as pro)pted solel( '( the desire to inGit needless and #n:#sti&ed

vexation on the). Considerin4 the eF#ities o! the sit#ation, plainti havin4 s#ered a

pe#niar( loss "hih, "hile res#ltin4 !ro) a !ort#ito#s event, perhaps "o#ld not have

o#rred at all had not de!endant ederio 9a#reano 'orro"ed his ar, "e, !eel that he is

not to 'e penali=ed !#rther '( his )ista7en vie" o! the la" in inl#din4 the) in his

o)plaint. Bell-"orth paraphrasin4 is the tho#4ht expressed in a Lnited States S#pre)e

Co#rt deision as to the existene o! an a'idin4 and !#nda)ental priniple that the

expenses and anno(ane o! liti4ation !or) part o! the soial '#rden o! livin4 in a soiet(

"hih see7s to attain soial ontrol thro#4h la". 8

BHEREORE, the deision o! the lo"er o#rt o! Nove)'er 0, /18% inso!ar as it orders

de!endant ederio 9a#reano to pa( plainti the a)o#nt o! P23,333.33 as da)a4es pl#s

the pa()ent o! osts, is here'( reversed. It is ar)ed inso!ar as it dis)issed the asea4ainst the other t"o de!endants, 5#anita 9a#reano and *ida de 9a#reano, and delared

that no )oral da)a4es sho#ld 'e a"arded the parties. Bitho#t prono#ne)ent as to

osts.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 856$1 Ju9; 31, 1$$0

*ACHELOR E=PRESS, INCORPORATED, n CRESENCIO RI!ERA, petitioners,vs.THE HONORA*LE CORT O APPEALS >S?& D@on, RICARDO *ETER, SERGIA*ETER, TEOILO RATRAT n BOETERA RATRAT, respondents.

A$uino . /a&e for petitioners.

-ran$uilino O. Calo' Jr. for private respondents.

GTIERREB, JR., J.:

This is a petition !or revie" o! the deision o! the Co#rt o! *ppeals "hih reversed and set

aside the order o! the Re4ional Trial Co#rt, 6ranh I, 6#t#an Cit( dis)issin4 the privaterespondents o)plaint !or olletion o! >a s#) o! )one(> and &ndin4 the petitionerssolidaril( lia'le !or da)a4es in the total a)o#nt o! One H#ndred T"ent( Tho#sand Pesos+P/03,333.33. The petitioners also F#estion the appellate o#rts resol#tion den(in4 a)otion !or reonsideration.

On *#4#st /, /1


26/43

ali4hted !ro) the '#s and ran to"ard the '#shes '#t "as 7illed '( the polie. Therea!ter,the heirs o! Orno)inio 6eter and Narisa Ra#tra#t, private respondents herein +Riardo6eter and Ser4ia 6eter are the parents o! Orno)inio "hile Teo&lo Ra#tra#t and Woeterasho#ld 'e WoteraQ Ra#tra#t are the parents o! Narisa &led a o)plaint !or >s#) o!)one(> a4ainst 6ahelor Express, In. its alle4ed o"ner Sa)son asa( and the driverRivera.

In their ans"er, the petitioners denied lia'ilit( !or the death o! Orno)inio 6eter andNarisa Ra#tra#t. The( alle4ed that ... the driver "as a'le to transport his passen4erssa!el( to their respetive plaes o! destination exept Orno)inio 6eter and NarisaRa#tra#t "ho :#)ped o the '#s "itho#t the 7no"led4e and onsent, )#h less, the !a#lt

o! the driver and ond#tor and the de!endants in this aseA the de!endant orporationhad exerised d#e dili4ene in the hoie o! its e)plo(ees to avoid as )#h as possi'leaidentsA the inident on *#4#st /, /1 +Rollo, p. % The( lai) that the assailed deision is 'ased on a)isapprehension o! !ats and its onl#sion is 4ro#nded on spe#lation, s#r)ises oron:et#res.

*s re4ards the proxi)ate a#se o! the death o! Orno)inio 6eter and Narisa Ra#tra#t, the

petitioners )aintain that it "as the at o! the passen4er "ho ran a)#7 and sta''edanother passen4er o! the '#s. The( ontend that the sta''in4 inident tri44ered o the

o))otion and pani a)on4 the passen4ers "ho p#shed one another andthat presu&al2 o#t o! !ear and )oved '( that h#)an instint o! sel!-preservation 6eterand Ra#tra#t :#)ped o the '#s "hile the '#s "as still r#nnin4 res#ltin4 in their #nti)el(death.> +Rollo, p. 8 Lnder these ir#)stanes, the petitioners asseverate that the( "erenot ne4li4ent in the per!or)ane o! their d#ties and that the inident "as o)pletel( anda'sol#tel( attri'#ta'le to a third person, the passen4er "ho ran a)#7, !or "itho#t hisri)inal at, 6eter and Ra#tra#t o#ld not have 'een s#':eted to !ear and sho7 "hiho)pelled the) to :#)p o the r#nnin4 '#s. The( ar4#e that the( sho#ld not 'e )adelia'le !or da)a4es arisin4 !ro) ats o! third persons over "ho) the( have no ontrol ors#pervision.

#rther)ore, the petitioners )aintain that the driver o! the '#s, 'e!ore, d#rin4 and a!terthe inident "as drivin4 a#tio#sl( 4ivin4 d#e re4ard to tra r#les, la"s and re4#lations.

The petitioners also ar4#e that the( are not ins#rers o! their passen4ers as r#led '( thetrial o#rt.

The lia'ilit(, i! an(, o! the petitioners is anhored on culpa contractual or 'reah o!ontrat o! arria4e. The applia'le provisions o! la" #nder the Ne" Civil Code are as!ollo"s?

*RT. /20. Co))on arriers are persons, orporations, &r)sor assoiations en4a4ed in the '#siness o! arr(in4 ortransportin4 passen4ers or 4oods or 'oth '( land, "ater, orair, !or o)pensation, oerin4 their servies to the p#'li.

*RT. /22. Co))on arriers, !ro) the nat#re o! their'#siness and !or reasons o! p#'li poli(, are 'o#nd too'serve extraordinar( dili4ene in the vi4ilane over the4oods and !or the sa!et( o! the passen4ers transported '(the), aordin4 to all the ir#)stanes o! eah ase.

xxx xxx xxx

*RT. /%%. * o))on arrier is 'o#nd to arr( thepassen4ers sa!el( as !ar as h#)an are and !oresi4ht anprovide, #sin4 the #t)ost dili4ene o! ver( a#tio#s persons,"ith a d#e re4ard !or all the ir#)stanes.

*RT. /%8. In ase o! death o! or in:#ries to passen4ers,

o))on arriers are pres#)ed to have 'een at !a#lt or tohave ated ne4li4entl(, #nless the( prove that the( o'servedextraordinar( dili4ene as presri'ed in *rtiles /22 and/%%.

There is no F#estion that 6ahelor Express, In. is a o))on arrier. Hene, !ro) thenat#re o! its '#siness and !or reasons o! p#'li poli( 6ahelor Express, In. is 'o#nd toarr( its passen4ers sa!el( as !ar as h#)an are and !oresi4ht an provide #sin4 the#t)ost dili4ene o! ver( a#tio#s persons, "ith a d#e re4ard !or all the ir#)stanes.

In the ase at 'ar, Orno)inio 6eter and Narisa Ra#tra#t "ere passen4ers o! a '#s'elon4in4 to petitioner 6ahelor Express, In. and, "hile passen4ers o! the '#s, s#eredin:#ries "hih a#sed their death. ConseF#entl(, p#rs#ant to *rtile /%8 o! the CivilCode, petitioner 6ahelor Express, In. is presu&ed to have ated ne4li4entl( #nless itan prove that it had o'served extraordinar( dili4ene in aordane "ith *rtiles /22

and /%% o! the Ne" Civil Code.


27/43

6ahelor Express, In. denies lia'ilit( !or the death o! 6eter and Ra#tra#t on its post#rethat the death o! the said passen4ers "as a#sed '( a third person "ho "as 'e(ond itsontrol and s#pervision. In eet, the petitioner, in order to overo)e the pres#)ption o!!a#lt or ne4li4ene #nder the la", states that the vehi#lar inident res#ltin4 in the deatho! passen4ers 6eter and Ra#tra#t "as a#sed '( !ore )a:e#re or caso fortuito over"hih the o))on arrier did not have an( ontrol.

*rtile //$ o! the present Civil Code states?

Exept in ases expressl( spei&ed '( la", or "hen it isother"ise delared '( stip#lations, or "hen the nat#re o! theo'li4ation reF#ires the ass#)ption o! ris7, no person shall 'eresponsi'le !or those events "hih o#ld not 'e !oreseen, or"hih tho#4h !oreseen, "ere inevita'le.

The a'ove-)entioned provision "as s#'stantiall( opied !ro) *rtile //3% o! the old CivilCode "hih states>

No one shall 'e lia'le !or events "hih o#ld not 'e !oreseenor "hih, even i! !oreseen, "ere inevita'le, "ith theexeption o! the ases in "hih the la" expressl( providesother"ise and those in "hih the o'li4ation itsel! i)poseslia'ilit(.

In the ase o! Lasa& v. (&ith +$% Phil. 8% /10$Q, "e de&ned >events> "hih annot 'e!oreseen and "hih, havin4 'een !oreseen, are inevita'le in the !ollo"in4 )anner?

... The Spanish a#thorities re4ard the lan4#a4e e)plo(ed asan eort to de&ne the ter) aso !ort#ito and hold that thet"o expressions are s(non()o#s. +Manresa Co)entarios alCodi4o Civil EspaYol, vol.


28/43

o the '#s "hen their o"n "itnesses testi&ed that "hen theo))otion ens#ed inside the '#s, the passen4ers p#shedand shoved eah other to"ards the door apparentl( in orderto 4et o !ro) the '#s thro#4h the door. 6#t the passen4ersalso o#ld not pass thro#4h the door 'ea#se aordin4 tothe evidene the door "as lo7ed.

On the other hand, the Co#rt is inlined to 4ive redene tothe evidene add#ed '( the de!endants that "hen theo))otion ens#ed inside the '#s, the t"o deeasedpani7ed and, in state o! sho7 and !ear, the( :#)ped o

!ro) the '#s '( passin4 thro#4h the "indo".

It is the prevailin4 r#le and settled :#rispr#dene thattransportation o)panies are not ins#rers o! theirpassen4ers. The evidene on reord does not sho" thatde!endants personnel "ere ne4li4ent in their d#ties. Thede!endants personnel have ever( ri4ht to aept passen4ersa'sent an( )ani!estation o! violene or dr#n7enness. I! and"hen s#h passen4ers har) other passen4ers "itho#t the7no"led4e o! the transportation o)pan(s personnel, thelatter sho#ld not 'e !a#lted. +Rollo, pp. $8-$

* thoro#4h exa)ination o! the reords, ho"ever, sho" that there are )aterial !atsi4nored '( the trial o#rt "hih "ere dis#ssed '( the appellate o#rt to arrive at adierent onl#sion. These ir#)stanes sho" that the petitioner o))on arrier "as

ne4li4ent in the provision o! sa!et( prea#tions so that its passen4ers )a( 'e transportedsa!el( to their destinations. The appellate o#rt states?

* ritial e(e )#st 'e aorded the lo"er o#rts onl#sionso! !at in its tersel( "ritten ratio decidendi. The lo"er o#rtonl#ded that the door o! the '#s "as losedA seondl(, thepassen4ers, spei&all( the t"o deeased, :#)ped o#t o! the"indo". The lo"er o#rt there!ore onl#ded that thede!endant o))on arrier is not lia'le !or the death o! thesaid passen4ers "hih it i)pliitl( attri'#ted to the#n!oreseen ats o! the #nidenti&ed passen4er "ho "enta)#7.

There is nothin4 in the reord to s#pport the onl#sion thatthe solitar( door o! the '#s "as lo7ed as to prevent thepassen4ers !ro) passin4 thro#4h. 9eonila C#llano, testi!(in4!or the de!ense, learl( stated that the ond#tor opened thedoor "hen the passen4ers "ere sho#tin4 that the '#s stop"hile the( "ere in a state o! pani. Ser4ia 6eter ate4oriall(stated that she at#all( sa" her son !all !ro) the '#s as thedoor "as !ored open '( the !ore o! the onr#shin4passen4ers.

Pedro Collan4o, on the other hand, testi&ed that he sh#t thedoor a!ter the last passen4er had 'oarded the '#s. 6#t hehad F#ite onvenientl( ne4leted to sa( that "hen thepassen4ers had pani7ed, he hi)sel! pani7ed and had 4oneto open the door. Portions o! the testi)on( o! 9eonila C#llano,F#oted 'elo", are ill#)inatin4?

xxx xxx xxx

K Bhen (o# said the ond#tor opened the door, the door atthe !ront or rear portion o! the '#sU

* ront door.

K *nd these t"o persons "ho) (o# said ali4hted, "here didthe( pass, the !ron+t door or rear doorU

* ront door.

xxx xxx xxx

+Tsn., p. $, *#4.


29/43

*tt(. a)'e?

K o# said that at the ti)e o! the inident the '#s "asr#nnin4 slo" 'ea#se (o# have :#st pi7ed #p a passen4er.Can (o# esti)ate "hat "as (o#r speed at that ti)eU

*tt(. Calo?

No 'asis, (o#r Honor, he is neither a driver nor a ond#tor.

COLRT?

9et the "itness ans"er. Esti)ate onl(, the ond#torexperiened.

Bitness?

Not less than 23 to $3 )iles.

COLRT?

ilo)eters or )ilesU

* Miles.

*tt(. a)'e?

K That is onl( (o#r esti)ate '( (o#r experieneU

* es, sir, esti)ate.

+Tsn., pp. $-%, Ot. /, /1are not ins#rers o! their passen4ers>deserves no )erit in vie" o! the !ail#re o! the petitioners to prove that the deaths o! thet"o passen4ers "ere exl#sivel( d#e to force &a!eureand not to the !ail#re o! thepetitioners to o'serve extraordinar( dili4ene in transportin4 sa!el( the passen4ers totheir destinations as "arranted '( la". +See 6atan4as 9a4#na Ta(a'as Co. v. Inter)ediate*ppellate Co#rt,supra.

The petitioners also ontend that the private respondents !ailed to sho" to the o#rt thatthe( are the parents o! Orno)inio 6eter and Narisa Ra#tra#t respetivel( and there!orehave no le4al personalit( to s#e the petitioners. This ar4#)ent deserves santonsideration. Be &nd this ar4#)ent a 'elated atte)pt on the part o! the petitioners toavoid lia'ilit( !or the deaths o! 6eter and Ra#tra#t. The private respondents "ereIdenti&ed as the parents o! the viti)s '( "itnesses d#rin4 the trial and the trial o#rtreo4ni=ed the) as s#h. The trial o#rt dis)issed the o)plaint solel( on the 4ro#ndthat the petitioners "ere not ne4li4ent.

inall(, the a)o#nt o! da)a4es a"arded to the heirs o! 6eter and Ra#tra#t '( theappellate o#rt is s#pported '( the evidene. The appellate o#rt stated?

Orno)inio 6eter "as 20 (ears o! a4e at the ti)e o! his death, sin4le, in 4oodhealth and renderin4 s#pport and servie to his )other. *s !ar as Narisa Ra#tra#t isonerned, the onl( evidene add#ed is to the eet that at her death, she "as 02 (earso! a4e, in 4ood health and "itho#t visi'le )eans o! s#pport.

In aordane "ith *rt. /8$ in on:#ntion "ith *rt. 0038 o!the Civil Code, and esta'lished :#rispr#dene, several !ators)a( 'e onsidered in deter)inin4 the a"ard o! da)a4es,na)el(? / li!e expetan( +onsiderin4 the state o! health o!the deeased and the )ortalit( ta'les are dee)ed

onl#sive and loss o! earnin4 apait(A +0 pe#niar( loss,loss o! s#pport and servieA and +2 )oral and )entals#erin4 +*lantara, et al. v. S#rro, et al., 12 Phil. $3.

In the ase o! "eople v. #aniel +No. 9-88%%/, *pril 0%, /1


30/43

Expetan( Ta'le o! Mortalit( +02 x


31/43

viti)s !ell !ro) the '#s door "hen it "as opened or 4ave "a( "hile the '#s "as still

r#nnin4A the ond#tor pani7ed and 'le" his "histle a!ter people had alread( !allen o

the '#sA and the '#s "as not properl( eF#ipped "ith doors in aordane "ith la"-it is

lear that the petitioners have !ailed to overo)e the pres#)ption o! !a#lt and ne4li4ene

!o#nd in the la" 4overnin4 o))on arriers.

The petitioners ar4#)ent that the petitioners >are not ins#rers o! their passen4ers>

deserves no )erit in vie" o! the !ail#re o! the petitioners to prove that the deaths o! the

t"o passen4ers "ere exl#sivel( d#e to !ore )a:e#re and not to the !ail#re o! the

petitioners to o'serve extraordinar( dili4ene in transportin4 sa!el( the passen4ers to

their destinations as "arranted '( la".

The lia'ilit(, i! an(, o! the petitioners is anhored on #lpa ontrat#al or 'reah o!

ontrat o! arria4e.

-G.R. No. 126204. No@e'e( 20, 2001/

NATIONAL PO)ER CORPORATION, petitioner , vs. PHILIPP *ROTHERS OCEANIC,

INC., respondent .

D E C I S I O N

SANDO!AL:GTIERREB, J.

Bhere a person )erel( #ses a ri4ht pertainin4 to hi), "itho#t 'ad !aith or intent to

in:#re, the !at that da)a4es are there'( s#ered '( another "ill not )a7e hi) lia'le./Q

This priniple &nds #se!#l appliation to the present ase.

6e!ore #s is a petition !or revie" o! the Deision 0Q dated *#4#st 0, /118 o! the

Co#rt o! *ppeals ar)in4 in toto the Deision2Q dated 5an#ar( /8, /110 o! the Re4ional

Trial Co#rt, 6ranh %, Ma7ati Cit(.

The !ats are?

On Ma( /$, /130 %9en( ; 7&e( (e%e& o7 &e Le&&e( o7 C(e& '; &e

SELLER o( & nonee as per Setion IV hereo! to )eet the vessel arrival shed#les at

Calaa, 6atan4as, Philippines as !ollo"s?

83,333 Z - /3 5#l( 03, /1


32/43

Therea!ter, trial on the )erits ens#ed.

On 5an#ar( /8, /110, the trial o#rt rendered a deision in !avor o! PHI6RO, the

dispositive portion o! "hih reads?

)HEREORE, :#d4)ent is here'( rendered in !avor o! plainti Philipp 6rothers Oeani

In. +PHI6RO and a4ainst the de!endant National Po"er Corporation +N*POCOR orderin4

the said de!endant N*POCOR?

/. To reinstate Philipp 6rothers Oeani, In. +PHI6RO in the de!endantNational Po"er Corporations list o! aredited 'idders and allo" PHI6RO to

partiipate in an( and all !#t#re tenders o! National Po"er Corporation !or

the s#ppl( and deliver( o! i)ported stea) oalA

0 To pa( Philipp 6rothers Oeani, In. +PHI6ROA

a. The peso eF#ivalent at the ti)e o! pa()ent o! [


33/43

Reonen& Cou(& o7 Ae9 (@e9; n e(ou9; e((e n %on%9un n o

o9n && NAPOCOR %&e 9%ou9; n unu&'9; n Fu97;n

PHI*RO 7(o (&%&n n &e De%e'e( 8, 1$8# n 7u&u(e 'n 7o( &e

u9; o7 o(&e %o9 e&e &e e?&en%e o7 @9 (oun &e(e7o( u%

e(ou (en& o7 & &(% (e%o(./$Q

III

Reonen& Cou(& o7 Ae9 (@e9; n e(ou9; e((e n %on%9un n o

o9n && PHI*RO en&&9e &o nun%&@e (e9e7, &o %&u9 o( %oen&o(;,

o(9 n e?e9(; e, &&o(ne; 7ee n 9&&on e?ene e&e

&e %9e( 'en%e o7 9e9 n 7%&u9 'e 7o( u% (./%Q

I!

Reonen& Cou(& o7 Ae9 (@e9; n e(ou9; e((e n 'o9@n PHI*RO

7(o n; 9'9&; 7o( e &o NAPOCOR 7o( & unu&e n e9'e(&e

(e7u9 no( 79u(e &o e9@e( &e %on&(%&e o(&e %o9 &n &e

&u9&e e(o./8Q

!

Reonen& Cou(& o7 Ae9 (@e9; n e(ou9; e((e n nNAPOCOR %oun&e(%9 7o( e n 9&&on e?ene./Q

It is axio)ati that onl( F#estions o! la", not F#estions o! !at, )a( 'e raised 'e!ore

this Co#rt in a petition !or revie" #nder R#le $% o! the R#les o! Co#rt. /


34/43

un7(ne o( nu&%e on, &e 9on 'e( @e no %ue &o %o9n,

nor ri4ht to disp#te that hoie.

Sn%e &e(e no e@en%e &o (o@e ' 7& n ('&((ne on &e (& o7

&e e&&one( n e@9u&n &e ', e (u9e && &e (@&e (eonen& (e

no& en&&9e &o e (e(een&n 9o& (o&. +E)phasis s#pplied

Veril(, a reservation o! the 4overn)ent o! its ri4ht to re:et an( 'id, 4enerall( vests

in the a#thorities a "ide disretion as to "ho is the 'est and )ost advanta4eo#s

'idder. The exerise o! s#h disretion involves inF#ir(, investi4ation, o)parison,

deli'eration and deision, "hih are F#asi-:#diial !#ntions, and "hen honestl( exerised,

)a( not 'e revie"ed '( the o#rt.23Q In 4ureau %eritas v. O7ce of the "resident'2/Q "e dereed?

Te %(e&on &o %%e& o( (ee%& ' n ( %on&(%& @e&e n &e

Go@e(nen& en%e en&(u&e & && 7un%&on. Te %(e&on @en &o &e

u&o(&e on & &&e( o7 u% e 9&&ue && &e Cou(& 99 no&

n&e(7e(e &e(e&, un9e & (en& && & ue e9 &o

7(uu9en& (. +5alandoni v. N*RR*, /3< Phil. $


35/43

an #r4ent oal order, there "ill 'e an additional expense o! [


36/43

orporation has no rep#tation in the sense that an individ#al has, and 'esides, it is

inherentl( i)possi'le !or a orporation to s#er )ental an4#ish. $


37/43

This is a onsolidated ase ste))in4 !ro) t"o ivil ases &led 'e!ore the Re4ional TrialCo#rt +RTC @ Civil Case No. K-13-3/0 and Civil Case No. K-13-%%/.

Civil Case No. K-13-3/0

On Oto'er /


38/43

Be ar) the r#lin4 o! the appellate o#rt that the s#':et dacion en pago is a si)#latedor &titio#s ontrat, and hene void. The evidene sho"s that at the ti)e it "as alle4edl(si4ned '( the "i!e o! the respondent, his "i!e "as alread( dead. This &ndin4 o! !atannot 'e reversed.

Be no" 4o to the r#lin4 o! the appellate o#rt extin4#ishin4 the o'li4ation o! respondent.*s a 4eneral r#le, o'li4ations derived !ro) a ontrat are trans)issi'le. *rtile /2//, par./o! the Civil Code provides?

Contrats ta7e eet onl( 'et"een the parties, their assi4ns and heirs, exept in ase"here the ri4hts and o'li4ations arisin4 !ro) the ontrat are not trans)issi'le '( their

nat#re, or '( stip#lation or '( provision o! la". The heir is not lia'le 'e(ond the val#e o!the propert( he reeived !ro) the deedent.1avvphi1

In Estate o! He)ad( v. 9#=on S#ret( Co., In.,08 the Co#rt, thro#4h 5#stie 569 Re(es, held?

Bhile in o#r s#essional s(ste) the responsi'ilit( o! the heirs !or the de'ts o! theirdeedent annot exeed the val#e o! the inheritane the( reeive !ro) hi), the priniplere)ains intat that these heirs s#eed not onl( to the ri4hts o! the deeased '#t also tohis o'li4ations. *rtiles $ and 8 o! the Ne" Civil Code +and *rtiles 8%1 and 88/ o!the preedin4 one expressl( so provide, there'( on&r)in4 *rtile /2// alread( F#oted.

>*RT. $. S#ession is a )ode o! aF#isition '( virt#e o! "hih the propert(, ri4htsand o'li4ations to the extent o! the val#e o! the inheritane, o! a person are trans)ittedthro#4h his death to another or others either '( his "ill or '( operation o! la".>

>*RT. 8. The inheritane inl#des all the propert(, ri4hts and o'li4ations o! a person"hih are not extin4#ished '( his death.>0 +E)phasis s#pplied

The Co#rt proeeded !#rther to state the 4eneral r#le?

ne( ou( 9, &e(e7o(e, &e ene(9 (u9e && (&; %on&(%&u9 (&n o'9&on (e &(n'9e &o &e u%%eo(. The r#le is a onseF#ene o!the pro4ressive >depersonali=ation> o! patri)onial ri4hts and d#ties that, as o'served '(Vitorio Polao, has harateri=ed the histor( o! these instit#tions. ro) the Ro)anonept o! a relation !ro) person to person, the o'li4ation has evolved into a relation!ro) patri)on( to patri)on(, "ith the persons o#p(in4 onl( a representative position,'arrin4 those rare ases "here the o'li4ation is stritl( personal, i.e., is ontrated int#it#personae, in onsideration o! its per!or)ane '( a spei& person and '( no other. The

transition is )ar7ed '( the disappearane o! the i)prison)ent !or de't. 0


39/43

G. R. No. 165548 June 13, 2011

PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Pe&&one(, @. LEY

CONSTRCTION AND DE!ELOP"ENT CORPORATION, Reonen&.

SERENO, J.

*CTS?

9e( Constr#tion and Develop)ent Corporation+9CDC "as the pro:et ontrator !or the

onstr#tion o! several '#ildin4s !or Philippine Realt( ; Holdin4s Corporation +PRHC, the

pro:et o"ner. En4ineer Dennis *'ede +*'ede "as the pro:et onstr#tion )ana4er o!

PRHC, "hile 5oselito Santos +Santos "as its 4eneral )ana4er and vie-president !or

operations.

So)eti)e 'et"een *pril /1onstr#tion

a4ree)ents.> 9CDC o))itted itsel! to the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4s needed '( PRHC,

"hih in t#rn o))itted itsel! to pa( the ontrat prie a4reed #pon.

The a4ree)ent overin4 the onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4 "as si4ned '( a Mr.

Ca)pos #nder the "ords >Phil. Realt( ; Holdin4s Corp.> and '( Santos as a

"itness.Man#el 9e(, the president o! 9CDC, si4ned #nder the "ords >9e( Const. ; Dev.

Corp.>

The ter)s e)'odied in the a!ore-listed onstr#tion a4ree)ents "ere al)ost idential.

Eah a4ree)ent provided !or a &xed prie to 'e paid '( PRHC !or ever( pro:et.

In the o#rse o! the onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4, it 'ea)e evident to 'oth parties

that 9CDC "o#ld not 'e a'le to &nish the pro:et "ithin the a4reed period.Th#s, thro#4h

its president, 9CDC )et "ith *'ede to dis#ss the a#se o! the dela(. 9CDC explained

that the #nantiipated dela( in onstr#tion "as d#e )ainl( to the s#dden, #nexpeted

hi7e in the pries o! e)ent and other onstr#tion )aterials. It lai)ed that, "itho#t a

orrespondin4 inrease in the &xed pries !o#nd in the a4ree)ents, it "o#ld 'e i)possi'le

!or it to &nish the onstr#tion o! the Te7tite 6#ildin4. In their anal(sis o! the pro:et plans

!or the '#ildin4 and o! all the external !ators aetin4 the o)pletion o! the pro:et, the

parties disovered that even i! 9CDC "ere a'le to ollet the entire 'alane !ro) the

ontrat, the olleted a)o#nt "o#ld still 'e ins#ient to p#rhase all the )aterials

needed to o)plete the onstr#tion o! the '#ildin4.

See7in4 to reover all the a'ove-)entioned a)o#nts, 9CDC &led a Co)plaint "ith

*ppliation !or the Iss#ane o! a Brit o! Preli)inar( *ttah)ent on 0 e'r#ar( /118 'e!ore

the RTC in Ma7ati Cit( do7eted as Civil Case No. 18-/83

ISSLE? Bhether 9CDC is lia'le !or liF#idated da)a4es !or dela( in the onstr#tion o! the

'#ildin4s !or PRHC.

HE9D? NO

CIVI9 9*B? O'li4ations and Contrats, Dela(

There is no F#estion that 9CDC "as not a'le to !#ll( onstr#t the Te7tite 6#ildin4 and

Pro:ets /, 0, and 2 on ti)e. It reasons that it sho#ld not 'e )ade lia'le !or liF#idated

da)a4es, 'ea#se its ri4ht!#l and reasona'le reF#ests !or ti)e extension "ere denied '(

PRHC.

It is i)portant to note that PRHC does not F#estion the verait( o! the !at#al

representations o! 9CDC to :#sti!( the latters reF#ests !or extension o! ti)e. It insists,

ho"ever, that in an( event 9CDC a4reed to the li)its o! the ti)e extensions it 4ranted.

The pratie o! the parties is that eah ti)e 9CDC reF#ests !or )ore ti)e, an extension

a4ree)ent is exe#ted and si4ned '( 'oth parties to indiate their :oint approval o! the

n#)'er o! da(s o! extension a4reed #pon.

*s previo#sl( )entioned, 9CDC sent a 1 Dee)'er /110 letter to PRHC lai)in4 that, in a

period o! over t"o (ears, onl( 0%8 o#t o! the 8/< da(s o! extension reF#ested "ere

onsidered. Be disre4ard these n#)'ers presented '( 9CDC 'ea#se o! its !ail#re to

present evidene to prove its alle4ation. The tall( that "e "ill aeptas reGeted '( the

evidene s#')itted to the lo"er o#rtis as !ollo"s? o#t o! the %8$ da(s reF#ested, onl(

02 "ere onsidered.

Essentiall( the sa)e a!ore)entioned reasons or a#ses are presented '( 9CDC as

de!ense a4ainst lia'ilit( !or 'oth Pro:ets / and 0.

Inas)#h as 9CDCs lai)ed exe)ption !ro) lia'ilit( are 'e(ond the approved ti)e

extensions, 9CDC, aordin4 to the )a:orit( o! the C*, is lia'le there!or.

5#stie5#an K. EnriF#e=, in his Dissentin4 Opinion, held that the reasons s#')itted '(9CDC !ell #nder the de&nition oore )a:e#re. This spei& point "as not re!#ted '( the

)a:orit(.

Be a4ree "ith 5#stie EnriF#e= on this point and there'( disa4ree "ith the )a:orit( r#lin4

o! the C*.

*rtile //$ o! the Civil Code provides? >Exept in ases expressl( spei&ed '( the la", or

"hen it is other"ise delared '( stip#lation or "hen the nat#re o! the o'li4ation reF#ires

the ass#)ption o! ris7, no person shall 'e responsi'le !or those events "hih o#ld not 'e

!oreseen, or "hih tho#4h !oreseen, "ere inevita'le.> * per#sal o! the onstr#tion

a4ree)ents sho"s that the parties never a4reed to )a7e 9CDC lia'le even in ases

oore )a:e#re. Neither "as the ass#)ption o! ris7 reF#ired. Th#s, in the o#rrene o!

events that o#ld not 'e !oreseen, or tho#4h !oreseen "ere inevita'le, neither part(

sho#ld 'e held responsi'le.

Lnder *rtile //$ o! the Civil Code, to exe)pt the o'li4or !ro) lia'ilit( !or a 'reah o! an

o'li4ation d#e to an >at o! od> or!ore )a:e#re, the !ollo"in4 )#st on#r?

+a the a#se o! the 'reah o! the o'li4ation )#st 'e independent o! the "ill o! the de'torA

+' the event )#st 'e either #n!orseea'le or #navoida'leA + the event )#st 'e s#h as

to render it i)possi'le !or the de'tor to !#l&ll his o'li4ation in a nor)al )annerA and +d

the de'tor )#st 'e !ree !ro) an( partiipation in, or a44ravation o! the in:#r( to the

reditor.

The shorta4e in s#pplies and e)ent )a( 'e harateri=ed as!ore )a:e#re. In the

present ase, hard"are stores did not have eno#4h e)ent availa'le in their s#pplies or

sto7s at the ti)e o! the onstr#tion in the /113s. 9i7e"ise, t(phoons, po"er !ail#res and

interr#ptions o! "ater s#ppl( all learl( !all #nder!ore )a:e#re. Sine 9CDC o#ld not


40/43

possi'l( ontin#e onstr#tin4 the '#ildin4 #nder the ir#)stanes prevailin4, it annot

'e held lia'le !or an( dela( that res#lted !ro) the a#ses a!ore)entioned.

#rther, PRHC is 'arred '( the dotrine o! pro)issor( estoppel !ro) den(in4 that it

a4reed, and even pro)ised, to hold 9CDC !ree and lear o! an( liF#idated da)a4es.

*'ede and Santos also pro)ised that the latter orporation "o#ld not 'e held lia'le !or

liF#idated da)a4es even !or a sin4le da( o! dela( despite the non-approval o! the

reF#ests !or extension.

"EGA)ORLD GLO*S ASIA, INC. @ ."ILA S. TANSECO

G.R. No. 181206 O%&o'e( $, 200$

*CTS?

On 5#l( , /11%, petitioner Me4a"orld lo'#s *sia, In. +Me4a"orld and respondent Mila

S. Tanseo +Tanseo entered into a Contrat to 6#( and Sell/ a 00$ sF#are-)eter +)ore

or less ondo)ini#) #nit at a pre-sellin4 pro:et. The p#rhase prie "as

P/8,


41/43

Ho"ever, H#i'onhoa 'ro#4ht an ation !or re!or)ation o! the ontrat alle4in4

that their tr#e intention as to "hen the )onthl( rental "o#ld ar#e "as not expressed

d#e to )ista7e or aident, averrin4 that '( reason o! s#h, the lease ontrat !ailed to

provide that sho#ld an #n!oreseen event dra)atiall( inrease the ost o! onstr#tion,

the )onthl( rental "o#ld 'e red#ed and the ter) o! the lease "o#ld 'e extended !or

s#h d#ration as )a( 'e !air and eF#ita'le to 'oth the lessor and the lessee.

ISSLE?

Bhether or not the assassination o! !or)er senator 6eni4no *F#ino "as a !ort#ito#s

event that an there'( lead the parties to re!or) the ontrat.

HE9D?

* !ort#ito#s event is that "hih o#ld not 'e !oreseen, or even i! !oreseen, "as

inevita'le. To exe)pt the o'li4or !ro) lia'ilit( !or 'reah o! an o'li4ation d#e to an \at o!

od,] the !ollo"in4 )#st on#r? &rst, the a#se o! 'reah )#st 'e independent o! the "ill

o! the o'li4or. Seond, the event )#st 'e #n!oreseea'le or inevita'le. Third, the event

)#st 'e s#h as to render it i)possi'le !or the de'tor to !#l&ll his o'li4ation in a nor)al

)anner. *nd !o#rth, the de'tor )#st 'e !ree !ro) an( partiipation in, or a44ravation o!,

the in:#r( to the reditor. #rther, inGation per se, does not ao#nt that a !ort#ito#s eventtranspired. InGation is the sharp inrease o! )one( or redit or 'oth "itho#t a

orrespondin4 inrease in '#siness transation. There is inGation "hen there is an

inrease in the vol#)e o! )one( and redit relative to availa'le parties to the lease

ontrat. Ordinar( dili4ene on the part o! the parties de)anded that the( exe#te a

"ritten a4ree)ent i! indeed the( "anted to enter into a ne" one 'ea#se o! the /%-(ear

li!e span o! the lease aetin4 real propert( and the !at that third persons "o#ld 'e

aeted there'( on ao#nt o! the express a4ree)ent allo"in4 the lessee to lease the

'#ildin4 to third parties. Ho"ever, onl( "hen an extraordinar( inGation s#pervenes that

the la" aords the parties a relie! in ontrat#al o'li4ations. Extraordinar( inGation exists

"hen there is a derease or inrease in the p#rhasin4 po"er o! the Philippine #rren(

"hih is #n#s#al or 'e(ond the o))on G#t#ation in the val#e o! said #rren(, and

s#h derease or inrease o#ld not have 'een reasona'l( !oreseen or "as )ani!estl(

'e(ond the onte)plation o! the parties at the ti)e o! the esta'lish)ent o! the

o'li4ation. #rther, no derease in the peso val#e o! s#h )a4nit#de havin4 o#rred,H#i'onhoa has no valid 4ro#nd to as7 the Co#rt to intervene and )odi!( the lease

a4ree)ent to s#it her p#rpose. H#i'onhoa !ailed to prove '( evidene, 'oth do#)entar(

and testi)onial, that there "as an extraordinar( inGation !ro) 5#l( /1


42/43

pani a)on4 the passen4ersA that "hen the '#s stopped, passen4ers Orno)inio 6eter

and Narisa Ra#tra#t "ere !o#nd l(in4 do"n the road, the !or)er alread( dead as a res#lt

o! head in:#ries and the latter also s#erin4 !ro) severe in:#ries "hih a#sed her death

later. The passen4er assailant ali4hted !ro) the '#s and ran to"ard the '#shes '#t "as

7illed '( the polie. Therea!ter, the heirs o! Orno)inio 6eter and Narisa Ra#tra#t, private

respondents herein +Riardo 6eter and Ser4ia 6eter are the parents o! Orno)inio "hile

Teo&lo Ra#tra#t and Woetera sho#ld 'e WoteraQ Ra#tra#t are the parents o! Narisa &led

a o)plaint !or >s#) o! )one(> a4ainst 6ahelor Express, In. its alle4ed o"ner Sa)son

asa( and the driver Rivera.

ISSLE? Bhether or not 6ahelor Express, In. an 'e held lia'le !or the death o! 6eter and

Ra#tra#t

HE9D?

The r#nnin4 a)#7 o! the passen4er "as the proxi)ate a#se o! the inident as it

tri44ered o a o))otion and pani a)on4 the passen4ers s#h that the passen4ers

started r#nnin4 to the sole exit shovin4 eah other res#ltin4 in the !allin4 o the '#s '(

passen4ers 6eter and Ra#tra#t a#sin4 the) !atal in:#ries. The s#dden at o! the

passen4er "ho sta''ed another passen4er in the '#s is "ithin the ontext o! !ore

)a:e#re.

Ho"ever, in order that a o))on arrier )a( 'e a'solved !ro) lia'ilit( in ase o!

!ore )a:e#re, it is not eno#4h that the aident "as a#sed '( !ore )a:e#re. The

o))on arrier )#st still prove that it "as not ne4li4ent in a#sin4 the in:#ries res#ltin4

!ro) s#h aident.

Considerin4 the !at#al &ndin4s o! the Co#rt o! *ppeals-the '#s driver did not i))ediatel(

stop the '#s at the hei4ht o! the o))otionA the '#s "as speedin4 !ro) a !#ll stopA the

viti)s !ell !ro) the '#s door "hen it "as opened or 4ave "a( "hile the '#s "as still

r#nnin4A the ond#tor pani7ed and 'le" his "histle a!ter people had alread( !allen o

the '#sA and the '#s "as not properl( eF#ipped "ith doors in aordane "ith la"-it is

lear that the petitioners have !ailed to overo)e the pres#)ption o! !a#lt and ne4li4ene!o#nd in the la" 4overnin4 o))on arriers.

The petitioners ar4#)ent that the petitioners >are not ins#rers o! their passen4ers>

deserves no )erit in vie" o! the !ail#re o! the petitioners to prove that the deaths o! the

t"o passen4ers "ere exl#sivel( d#e to !ore )a:e#re and not to the !ail#re o! the

petitioners to o'serve extraordinar( dili4ene in transportin4 sa!el( the passen4ers to

their destinations as "arranted '( la".

The lia'ilit(, i! an(, o! the petitioners is anhored on #lpa ontrat#al or 'reah o!

ontrat o! arria4e.

!FueM @. CA

138 SCRA 553

ats? Petitioners lost their hildren in a ship"re7 involvin4 the vessel o! privaterespondent "hen it sailed despite a t(phoon.

Iss#e? / Bn it is a !ort#ito#s event

0 Bn respondents are lia'le

HE9D?

/ No. It is not a aso !ort#ito. The ele)ents to onsider in s#stainin4 a ase o! aso!ort#ito are the ? / the event )#st 'e independent o! the h#)an "ill, 0 the o#rrene)#st render it i)possi'le !or the de'tor to !#l&ll the o'li4ation in a nor)al )anner, 2 theo'li4or )#st 'e !ree o! partiipation in, a44ravation o!, the in:#r( to the reditor,

0 Petitioners are lia'le as it is not a aso !ort#tito. There is no aso !ort#ito "hen the shipaptain proeeded en ro#te despite a t(phoon advie lose to the area "here the vessel"ill pass. Moreover, the 6oard o! Marines inF#ir( onl#sion that the ship aptain "as notne4li4ent is not 'indin4 on the Co#rt "hen said &ndin4 is not o)plete. The lia'ilit( o! theship o"ner also extends to the val#e o! vessel and the ins#rane proeeds thereon.

NATIONAL PO)ER CORPORATION @. PHILIPP *ROTHERS OCEANIC, INC.

G.R. No. 126204 2001 No@ 20

*CTS?

On Ma( /$, /1


43/43

reF#ire)ents. Lpon !#rther inF#ir(, PHI6RO !o#nd that the real reason !or the disapproval

"as its p#rported !ail#re to satis!( N*POCORs de)and !or da)a4es d#e to the dela( in

the deliver( o! the &rst oal ship)ent.

ISSE Bhether or not the Co#rt o! *ppeals 4ravel( and serio#sl( erred in onl#din4

and so holdin4 that PHI6ROs dela( in the deliver( o! i)ported oal "as d#e to

N*POCORs alle4ed dela( in openin4 a letter o! redit and to !ore )a:e#re, and not to

PHI6ROs o"n deli'erate ats and !a#lts

RLING ort#ito#s events )a( 'e prod#ed '( t"o 4eneral a#ses? +/ '( Nat#re, s#h

as earthF#a7es, stor)s, Goods, epide)is, &res, et., and +0 '( the at o! )an, s#h as

an ar)ed invasion, atta7 '( 'andits, 4overn)ental prohi'itions, ro''er(, et. The ter)

4enerall( applies, 'roadl( spea7in4, to nat#ral aidents. In order that ats o! )an s#h

as a stri7e, )a( onstit#te !ort#ito#s event, it is neessar( that the( have the !ore o! an

i)position "hih the de'tor o#ld not have resisted. Hene, '( la" and '( stip#lation o!

the parties, the stri7es "hih too7 plae in *#stralia !ro) the &rst "ee7 o! 5#l( to the third

"ee7 o! Septe)'er, /1

fortuitous event case- oblicon

Documents