Case Digest (G.R. No. 115863)
Facts:
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Spouses Gonzalo and Consuelo Go, G.R. No. 165164, August 17, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.On December 29, 1995, petitioner Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. entered into a contract to sell a condominium unit at “Eight Sto. Domingo Place” to respondents Gonzalo and Consuelo Go. The spouses paid P3,439,000.07 toward a lump-sum contract price of P3,620,000.00. Petitioner failed to develop the condominium project according to schedule; the spouses on August 4, 1999 demanded refund of payments and interest, and when petitioner did not comply they filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking reimbursement of the lump-sum price with interest, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
The HLURB Housing and Land Use Arbiter ruled for the spouses, finding that the 1997 Asian financial crisis did not constitute a fortuitous event excusing petitioner’s non-performance and ordering refund of P3,439,000.07 plus 12% interest from August 9, 1999, and awarding P25,000 attorney’s fees. The HLURB Board of Commissioners denied petitioner’s petition for review and motion for reconsideration. The Office of the President likewise dismissed petitioner’s administrative appeal and denied reconsideration.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 79624), which affirmed the HLURB and Office of the President rulings, holding that the Asian financial crisis could not excuse non-performance and that respondents’ rights were protected by Section 23 of P.D. No. 957. The CA denied p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the 1997 Asian financial crisis was not a fortuitous event excusing petitioner’s failure to deliver the condominium unit?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding petitioner liable for attorney’s fees and in the computation of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)