Title
Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. vs. Tanseco
Case
G.R. No. 181206
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2009
Megaworld breached contract by failing to deliver condo on time; Tanseco awarded refund, interest, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181206)

Contract Terms and Payment Schedule

Parties agreed on a P16,802,037.32 purchase price for a 224 sqm unit. Buyer paid:
• 30% less P100,000 reservation fee by July 14, 1995
• 30 monthly installments (Aug 1995–Jan 1998)
• Balance P2,520,305.63 upon delivery (due Oct 31, 1998 or seven days after earlier turnover notice)

Construction Schedule and Extension Clause

Seller warranted completion by Oct 31, 1998, plus a six‐month grace period, except for delays due to force majeure (e.g., fire, war, acts of God, government controls). Seller reserved right to withdraw and refund payments without interest if completion became impossible or loss‐making for reasons beyond its control.

Delay, Turnover Notice, and Buyer’s Demand

Seller missed both the Oct 31, 1998 deadline and the April 30, 1999 grace‐period expiry. On April 23, 2002, it issued a turnover notice. Buyer’s counsel responded May 6, 2002, demanding refund of P14,281,731.70 plus 12% interest from April 30, 1999, citing absence of force majeure.

HLURB Proceedings and Laches Ruling

Buyer filed for rescission, refund, and damages with HLURB in June 2002. The Arbiter (May 28, 2003) dismissed the complaint, holding no default since turnover notice preceded buyer’s demand. HLURB Board (Nov 28, 2003) affirmed on grounds of laches for failure to promptly demand rescission; appellate review by the Office of the President (Apr 28, 2006; Aug 30, 2006 resolution) dismissed buyer’s appeal.

Court of Appeals Decision

On Rule 43 review (Sept 28, 2007), the Court of Appeals:

  1. Declared time of performance of essence under Art. 1169(2)—no demand required.
  2. Computed delay from Oct 31, 1998 (no valid force majeure).
  3. Rescinded the contract, ordered full refund with 12% interest from Oct 31, 1998.
  4. Awarded P200,000 exemplary damages and P200,000 attorney’s fees.

Article 1169 and Default Without Demand

Civil Code Art. 1169 provides that when time is a controlling motive in reciprocal obligations, obligor incurs delay without demand. Here, buyer’s obligation to pay balance was contingent upon seller’s timely delivery.

Force Majeure and the 1997 Financial Crisis

Art. 1174 limits liability for unforeseeable and inevitable events. The Court held that a seasoned real‐estate developer cannot invoke ordinary currency and business fluctuations as force majeure—1997 crisis was neither unforeseeable nor inevitable for a “master in projections.”

Equity Considerations and Rejection of Laches

Laches, guided by equity, did not bar buyer’s claim. Buyer honored installment payments up to Jan 1998; seller alone defaulted. Equitable balance favored buyer.

Non-Forfeiture under PD 957 Section 23

Under PD 957 Sec. 23, when developer fails to deliver per approved plans and schedule, buyer may desist after due notice and recover total payments plus legal interest. Buyer was entitled to reimbursement of P14,281,731.70 with statutory interest.

Interest, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs

• Interest: 6% per annum from May 6, 2002 (first demand); 12% per annum from finality of judgment.
• Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Contractual stipulation plac




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.