Scribd
Upload
167 views2 pages

College Assurance Plan v. Belfranlt Development, Inc.

This case involves a fire that destroyed parts of Belfranlt Building, including the third floor units occupied by College Assurance Plan (CAP). Belfranlt demanded that CAP pay for repair costs, but CAP denied liability, claiming the fire was a fortuitous event. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Belfranlt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fire was not a fortuitous event because it was caused by CAP's negligence in allowing a coffee percolator to overheat in their leased premises on the third floor. As the lessee, CAP is responsible for any deterioration or loss of the leased property unless they can prove the cause was beyond their control. However,

Uploaded by

Elliana Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
167 views2 pages

College Assurance Plan v. Belfranlt Development, Inc.

This case involves a fire that destroyed parts of Belfranlt Building, including the third floor units occupied by College Assurance Plan (CAP). Belfranlt demanded that CAP pay for repair costs, but CAP denied liability, claiming the fire was a fortuitous event. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Belfranlt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fire was not a fortuitous event because it was caused by CAP's negligence in allowing a coffee percolator to overheat in their leased premises on the third floor. As the lessee, CAP is responsible for any deterioration or loss of the leased property unless they can prove the cause was beyond their control. However,

Uploaded by

Elliana Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

College Assurance Plan Phil. Inc., vs. Belfranlt Development Inc.

G. R. No. 155604
November 22, 2007

AUSTRIA MARTINEZ, J:

FACTS: Belfranlt Development Inc (Belfranlt) is the owner of Belfranlt Building in


Angeles Pamnpanga. The second and third floors of its building were leased to College
Assurance Plan (CAP) and Comprehensive Annuity Plans and Pension Corporation
(CAPP). A fire incident destroyed the parts of the building, including the third floor units
occupied by CAP. The cause of the fire was identified to be an overheated coffee
percolator located in the leased premises of CAP located on the 3rd floor.

Belfranlt requested CAP to vacate the 3rd floor as it needed to be repaired and demanded
that CAP pay P1.5M for reparation. CAP vacated both the 3 rd and 2nd floors. Belfanlt stated
that the 2nd floor was not affected, thus there was no reason for them to vacate The lease on
the said units is deemed still subsisting along with their obligation to pay for the rent.
Despite the notice to pay for the reparation, the demand stayed unacted hence a second
demand letter was made by CAP. This time they are demanding to pay P2M as estimated
by professionals.

CAP stated that they could no longer re-occupy the units on the 2 nd floor as they had
already moved to another location. They also denied liability for reparation claiming
that the fire was a fortuitous event.

Belfranlt, for the third time, demanded to pay reparation but the demand went unheeded,
this prompted Belfranlt to file with the RTC a complaint for damages.

RTC ruled in favor of Belfranlt and ordered CAP to pay the reparation and rehabilitation
costs of the building amounting to P2.2 as well as the unpaid rentals and damages. CA
modified the award of damages but affirmed the decision in all other aspects. Hence, this
petition before the SC.

ISSUE: Whether the fire, which destroyed the building, is considered a fortuitous event
which could exonerate CAP, as a lessee, from its liability.

HELD: The SC held that the fire which destroyed the building is not a fortuitous event;
hence, CAP should be held liable.

Art 1667 of the Civil Code provides that: The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or
loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault. This burden
of proof on the lessee does not apply when the destruction is due to earthquake, flood,
storm, or other natural calamity.
The provision creates the presumption that the lessee is liable for the deterioration or loss
of a thing leased. And to overcome this presumption, the lessee must prove that the
deterioration or loss was due to a fortuitous event which took place without his fault or
negligence.

Applying the said provision, CAP will only be exonerated if they prove that the fire which
destroyed the building is a fortuitous event which took place without their fault and
negligence. Fortuitous events are those events which could not be foreseen or which
though foreseen, were inevitable. In this case, the proximate cause of the fire was the fault
and negligence of CAP in using a coffee percolator in the office stockroom on the third
floor of the building and in allowing the electrical device to overheat. The fire that
damaged Belfranlt Building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but the outcome of
a human act or omission. The fire originated from CAP’s stockroom located on the third
floor and was under the control of CAP which conducted a seminar in the training room
on the day of the incident.

The SC held that CAP should be held responsible. The decision of CA is affirmed with
modification as to the award of damages.

You might also like