Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

Lessee Liability in Fire Damage

The case College Assurance Plan vs. Belfrant Development Inc. addresses the presumption of liability for lessees under Article 1667 of the Civil Code, which was rebutted by the petitioners' failure to prove the fire was a fortuitous event. The court ruled that the fire resulted from the petitioners' negligence and applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, leading to the award of temperate damages of P500,000. The petition for review was denied, affirming the lower court's findings on liability and damages.

Uploaded by

eileenducusinbr27
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
34 views2 pages

Lessee Liability in Fire Damage

The case College Assurance Plan vs. Belfrant Development Inc. addresses the presumption of liability for lessees under Article 1667 of the Civil Code, which was rebutted by the petitioners' failure to prove the fire was a fortuitous event. The court ruled that the fire resulted from the petitioners' negligence and applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, leading to the award of temperate damages of P500,000. The petition for review was denied, affirming the lower court's findings on liability and damages.

Uploaded by

eileenducusinbr27
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

Case Digest C.

a. Doctrine: The presumption of liability for lessees under


Article 1667 of the Civil Code can only be rebutted by
proving that the loss or damage was due to a fortuitous
event. Also, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be applied
in negligence cases where the cause of the injury is within
the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury does
not occur without negligence. Lastly, temperate damages
may be awarded when some pecuniary loss has occurred,
but the exact amount cannot be determined with certainty.

b. Case Title: College Assurance Plan vs. Belfrant Devt Inc.


GR. No. 155604 (J. Austria-Martinez) (November 22, 2007)

c. Facts:

College Assurance Plan Phil Inc. (CAP) leased the


second and third floors of its building to Belfranlt
Development Inc. Fire destroyed the parts of the building,
including the third-floor units being occupied by Belfranlt.
The cause of the fire was identified to be an overheated
coffee percolator located in the leased premises of Belfranlt.

CAP demanded Belfranlt to pay for actual damages


caused by the fire. However, the latter disclaimed liability,
alleging that the fire was a fortuitous event for which they
could not be held liable.

RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the


petitioners to pay various damages, including costs for
building repairs, unpaid rentals, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees.

On appeal, CA modified the RTC's decision by deleting


certain damage awards and instead granting temperate
damages of P500,000. The petitioners then filed a petition
for review, questioning the CA's findings regarding the
nature of the fire, their liability, and the damages awarded.
Hence, this petition.

d. Issue: Whether or not the fire, which destroyed CAP’s


building, is a fortuitous event

e. Held:

No. The fire was not a fortuitous event but rather the
result of the petitioners' negligence. Under Article 1667 of
the Civil Code, the lessee is presumed liable for damages
unless they can prove otherwise. The petitioners failed to
provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Court noted that the BFP's investigation report was


credible and constituted competent evidence, as it was
based on official records. The petitioners' claims of hearsay
regarding the report were dismissed, as the documents were
prepared by a government official based on witness
statements.

The Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,


which allowed the respondent to infer negligence from the
circumstances surrounding the fire. The petitioners had
exclusive control over the premises where the fire originated,
and their failure to adequately explain the cause of the fire
further supported the inference of negligence.

Regarding damages, the Court found that the CA's


modification of the RTC's award was appropriate. The CA's
decision to award temperate damages of P500,000 was
justified, as the respondent could not prove the exact
amount of damages suffered but demonstrated some
pecuniary loss.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like