TOPIC: Fortuitous Event, Requisites and Effects

CASE TITLE: Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprises, G.R. No. 167195

LAW:

Article 1170 of the Civil Code states: "Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof are liable for
damages."
Article 1174 of the Civil Code which provides that except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires assumption
of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which though
foreseen, were inevitable.
FACTS:

On Nov. 7, 1990, APT and TJ entered into an absolute deed of sale over certain refrigeration machineries
and after 2 days, TJ demanded the delivery of the machinery it purchased.

However, during the hauling of Lot 2 consisting of 16 items, only 9 items were pulled out by TJ while 7
items were left behind. Creative Lines (CL) employees prevented TJ from hauling the remaining
machineries.

TJ filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against APT and CL. During the pendency of
the case, TJ was able to pull out the remaining machineries. However, upon inspection, it was discovered
that there were damages and missing parts.

Petitioner claims that its failure to make actual delivery was beyond its control. It posits that the refusal
of Creative Lines to allow the hauling of the machinery and equipment was unforeseen and constituted
a fortuitous event.

The RTC ruled that APT is liable for breach of contract and should pay for actual damages. The CA affirmed
the RTC in toto. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal of Creative Lines to allow the hauling of the machinery and
equipment was unforeseen and constituted a fortuitous event.

RULING: RATIO:

No, It was not a fortuitous event.

The SC quotes the CA and held that CL’s refusal to allow the hauling is not a fortuitous event which
exculpates APT from the payment of damages. This event cannot be considered as unavoidable or
unforeseen. APT knew that the properties sold were in the premises leased by CL. It should have made
arrangements with CL beforehand for the smooth and orderly hauling of the machineries.

The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act muse be one occasioned
exclusively by the violence of human nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or

By:JRB
entering into the cause of the mischief. When the cause is found to be in part the result of man’s
participation, whether through fault, negligence, or omission, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized
and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.

Assuming arguendo that CL’s refusal to allow the hauling is a fortuitous event, APT will still be liable for
damages based on NCC 1170.
The elements of a fortuitous event are:
(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, must have been independent of
human will;
(b) the event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if
foreseeable, impossible to avoid;
(c) the occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their
obligation in a normal manner, and;
(d) the obligor must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to
the creditor.

By:JRB
By:JRB