This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that Article 1250 of the Civil Code becomes applicable only when there is extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency. Inflation has been defined as the sharp increase of money or credit or both without a corresponding increase in business transaction. There is inflation when there is an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level.[19] In Singson v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.,[20] this Court already provided a discourse as to what constitutes as extraordinary inflation or deflation of currency, thus - | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's claim, that the respondents could not be held in default because of a fortuitous event, is untenable. Said event, the Asian financial crisis of 1997, is not among the fortuitous events contemplated under Article 1174[19] of the Civil Code. To exempt the obligor from liability for a breach of an obligation by reason of a fortuitous event, the following requisites must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.[20] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract. An action for reformation of instrument under this provision of law may prosper only upon the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contact; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.[18] | |||||
|
2000-10-04 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We have held extraordinary inflation to exist when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasing power of the Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the common fluctuation in the value of said currency, and such increase or decrease could not have been reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time of the establishment of the obligation.[11] | |||||
|
2000-10-04 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Thus, in the Filipino Pipe case, the Court acknowledged that the voluminous records and statistics submitted by plaintiff-appellant proved that there has been a decline in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, but this downward fall cannot be considered "extraordinary" but was simply a universal trend that has not spared our country.[13] Similarly, in Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court dismissed plaintiff-appellant's unsubstantiated allegation that the Aquino assassination in 1983 caused building and construction costs to double during the period July 1983 to February 1984. In Serra vs. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court again did not consider the decline in the peso's purchasing power from 1983 to 1985 to be so great as to result in an extraordinary inflation. | |||||