Case Digest: Fil-Estate Properties vs Spouses Ronquillo

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. AND FIL-ESTATE NETWORK INC., Petitioners, vs.

SPOUSES CONRADO AND MARIA VICTORIA RONQUILLO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185798               January 13, 2014

 

PONENTE: Perez

FACTS:

                Petitioner Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. is the owner and developer of the Central Park Place Tower while co-petitioner Fil-Estate Network, Inc. is its authorized marketing agent. Respondent Spouses Conrado and Maria Victoria Ronquillo purchased from petitioners an 82-square meter condominium unit for a pre-selling contract price of P5,174,000.00. On 29 August 1997, respondents executed and signed a Reservation Application Agreement wherein they deposited P200,000.00 as reservation fee. As agreed upon, respondents paid the full downpayment of P1,552,200.00 and had been paying the P63,363.33 monthly amortizations until September 1998.

                Upon learning that construction works had stopped, respondents likewise stopped paying their monthly amortization. Claiming to have paid a total of P2,198,949.96 to petitioners, respondents through two (2) successive letters, demanded a full refund of their payment with interest. When their demands went unheeded, respondents were constrained to file a Complaint for Refund and Damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Respondents prayed for reimbursement/refund of P2,198,949.96 representing the total amortization payments, P200,000.00 as and by way of moral damages, attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses.

                On 13 June 2002, the HLURB in favor of herein respondents. The Arbiter considered petitioners’ failure to develop the condominium project as a substantial breach of their obligation which entitles respondents to seek for rescission with payment of damages. The Arbiter also stated that mere economic hardship is not an excuse for contractual and legal delay.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Asian financial crisis constitute a fortuitous event which would justify delay by petitioners in the performance of their contractual obligation;
  2. Assuming that petitioners are liable, whether or not 12% interest was correctly imposed on the judgment award

HELD:

FIRST ISSUE: NO

                The Supreme Court held that the Asian financial crisis is not a fortuitous event that would excuse petitioners from performing their contractual obligation.

                The Court ruled that “we cannot generalize that the Asian financial crisis in 1997 was unforeseeable and beyond the control of a business corporation. It is unfortunate that petitioner apparently met with considerable difficulty e.g. increase cost of materials and labor, even before the scheduled commencement of its real estate project as early as 1995. However, a real estate enterprise engaged in the pre-selling of condominium units is concededly a master in projections on commodities and currency movements and business risks. The fluctuating movement of the Philippine peso in the foreign exchange market is an everyday occurrence, and fluctuations in currency exchange rates happen everyday, thus, not an instance of caso fortuito.”

SECOND ISSUE: NO

                The Court held that 6% is the proper legal interest rate.

                The resulting modification of the award of legal interest is, also, in line with our recent ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, embodying the amendment introduced by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board in BSP-MB Circular No. 799 which pegged the interest rate at 6% regardless of the source of obligation.

FALLO:

                WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be paid is SIX PERCENT (6%) on the amount due computed from the time of respondents’ demand for refund on 8 October 1998.

Share this:

Leave a Reply