MEGAWORLD GLOBUS ASIA, INC V MILA S. TANSECO
GR. NO. 181206 OCTOBER 9, 2009

FACTS
On July 7, 1995, petitioner Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. (Megaworld) and respondent Mila S. Tanseco (Tanseco) entered into a Contract to Buy and Sell[1] a 224 square-meter (more or less) condominium unit at a pre-selling project, The Salcedo Park, located along Senator Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City. The purchase price was P16,802,037.32, to be paid as follows: (1) 30% less the reservation fee of P100,000, or P4,940,611.19, by postdated check payable on July 14, 1995; (2)P9,241,120.50 through 30 equal monthly installments of P308,037.35 from August 14, 1995 to January 14, 1998; and (3) the balance of P2,520,305.63 on October 31, 1998, the stipulated delivery date of the unit; provided that if the construction is completed earlier, Tanseco paid all instalment due up tp January 1998 leaving unpaid balance of P 2,520,305.63 pending delivery of the unit. Megaworld, however failed to deliver the unit within the stipulated period on October 31, 1998 or April 30,1999 the last day of the six moths grace period.

A few days shy of three years later, Megaworld, by notice dated April 23, 2002 (notice of turnover), informed Tanseco that the unit was ready for inspection preparatory to delivery.[3] Tanseco replied through counsel, by letter of May 6, 2002, that in view of Megaworlds failure to deliver the unit on time, she was demanding the return ofP14,281,731.70 representing the total installment payment she had made, with interest at 12% per annum from April 30, 1999, the expiration of the six-month grace period.Tanseco pointed out that none of the excepted causes of delay existed.[4]

ISSUE
Whether or not there was a fortuitous event in the case at bar.

HELD
The contract to buy and sell of the parties contains recieprocal obligation to complete and deliver the condominium unit on October 31, 1998 or six months thereafter on the part of Megaworld and to pay the balance of the purchase price at or about the time of delivery on the part of Tanseco compliance by Megaworld with its obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price. Megaworld having failed to comply with its obligation under the contract it is liable thereof.
That Megaworld’s sending of a notice of turnover predeed Tanseco’s demand for refund does not abate for demand would have been useless Megaworld admittedly having failed in its obligation to deliver the unit on the agreed date.

ARTICLE 1174 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROVIDE
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)