Doctrine:
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.
Case Title:
Asset Privatization Trust (APT) vs. T.J. Enterprises, G.R. No. 167195, May 8,
2009 (J. Tinga)
Facts:
APT was a government entity created for the purpose to conserve, to
provisionally manage and to dispose assets of government institutions. APT had
acquired from DBP assets consisting of machinery and refrigeration equipment
which were then stored at Golden City compound. The compound was then
leased to and in the physical possession of Creative Lines. These assets were
being sold on an as-is-where-is basis.
APT and TJ Enterprises entered into an absolute deed of sale over certain
machinery and refrigeration equipment. TJ Enterprises paid the full amount of
₱84,000.00. After 2 days, TJ Enterprises demanded the delivery of the machinery
it had purchased. APT issued Gate Pass No. 4955. TJ Enterprises was able to pull
out from the compound the properties. However, during the hauling of Lot No. 2
consisting of 16 items, only 9 items were pulled out by TJ Enterprises. The 7 items
that were left behind. Creative Lines’ employees prevented TJ Enterprises from
hauling the remaining machinery and equipment.
TJ Enterprises filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against
APT and Creative Lines. During the pendency of the case, TJ Enterprises was able
to pull out the remaining machinery and equipment. However, upon inspection it
was discovered that the machinery and equipment were damaged and had missing
parts.
APT argued that upon the execution of the deed of sale it had complied with
its obligation to deliver the object of the sale since there was no stipulation to the
contrary. It further argued that being a sale on an as-is-where-is basis, it was TJ
Enterprises’ duty to take possession of the property. APT claimed that there was
already a constructive delivery of the machinery and equipment.
The RTC ruled that the execution of the deed of absolute sale did not result
in constructive delivery of the machinery and equipment. It found that at the time
of the sale, APT did not have control over the machinery and equipment and, thus,
could not have transferred ownership by constructive delivery. The RTC ruled that
APT is liable for breach of contract and should pay for the actual damages suffered
by TJ Enterprises. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence this
petition.
Issue:
Whether ATP’s failure to make actual delivery was beyond its control.
Ruling:
No.
A fortuitous event may either be an act of God, or natural occurrences such
as floods or typhoons, or an act of man such as riots, strikes or wars. However,
when the loss is found to be partly the result of a person’s participation – whether
by active intervention, neglect or failure to act – the whole occurrence is
humanized and removed from the rules applicable to a fortuitous event.
Creative Lines’ refusal to surrender the property to the vendee does not constitute
force majeure which exculpates APT from the payment of damages. This event
cannot be considered unavoidable or unforeseen. APT knew for a fact that the
properties to be sold were housed in the premises leased by Creative Lines. It
should have made arrangements with Creative Lines beforehand for the smooth
and orderly removal of the equipment. The principle embodied in the act of God
doctrine strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the
violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or
entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be
considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it
be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence is
thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of
God.
Moreover, Art. 1504 of the Civil Code provides that where actual delivery
has been delayed through the fault of either the buyer or seller the goods are at the
risk of the party in fault. The risk of loss or deterioration of the goods sold does not
pass to the buyer until there is actual or constructive delivery thereof. As
previously discussed, there was no actual or constructive delivery of the machinery
and equipment. Thus, the risk of loss or deterioration of property is borne by
petitioner. Thus, it should be liable for the damages that may arise from the delay.
