WEEK02 #16 Fil-Estate v.

Ronquillo No, the 1997 Asian Financial Crises is not an instance of a fortuitous
G.R. No. 185798 | 13 January 2014 event. There cannot be a generalization that the Asian Financial crisis in
1997 was unforeseeable and beyond the control of a business
corporation. A real estate enterprise engaged in the pre-selling of
Topic: Fortuitous event condominium units is concededly a master in projections on
Petitioner: FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. FIL-ESTATE NETWORK, INC. commodities and currency movements and business risks. The
Respondent: POUSES CONRADO AND MARIA VICTORIA RONQUILLO fluctuating movement of the Philippine peso in the foreign exchange
Ponente: Perez, J. market is an everyday occurrence, and fluctuations in currency exchange
rates happen every day, thus, not an instance of caso fortuito

FACTS:
A Reservation Application Agreement was entered between respondents
and petitioners for a residential condominium unit, with the
respondents depositing P200,000 as reservation fee and monthly
amortizations. Upon learning that the construction had stopped,
respondents also stopped paying their monthly amortizations.
DOCTRINE:
An event cannot be considered as a fortuitous event to excuse delay in
the performance of an obligation if the obligor (a real estate enterprise)
is considered a master in projections on currency movements and
business risks.

Respondents then demanded a full refund of their payments with

interest. They then filed a complaint for Refund and Damages before the
HLURB, since non-compliance was of the development of the
condominium within the agreed schedule is a substantial breach.

Petitioners argued that the depreciation of the peso due to the 1997
Asian financial crises is a fortuitous event, exempting them from their
performance of their obligation to construct the condominium. They
argued that the delay was due to a fortuitous event, and thus they should
not be held liable for damages.

ISSUE:
Whether the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis is a fortuitous event sufficient
to exempt petitioner from performing their reciprocal obligation to
follow the construction of the condominium project?

RULING: