Nakpil and Sons v. CA Facts: The Philippine Bar Association wanted to erect a building in its lot in Intramuros.

They were able to obtain a contract with the United Construction Company Inc for the construction of the building and the design was obtained from Juan M. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil. The Building was completed in June 1966. On August 2, 1968 a massive earthquake hit Manila with an intensity of about 7.3. This earthquake caused damage to the building and caused it to lean forward dangerously which led to the vacation of the building. United Construction Company in turn shored up the building and incurred 13,661.28 php as costs. The PBA then instituted a case against UCC for damages due to its negligence regarding the construction of the said building thru its failure to follow the designs coming from the architects. UCC then filed a complaint against the architects (Nakpil & Sons) alleging that it was the designs that are flawed and that caused the buildings inability to withstand an earthquake. UCC also included the president of PBA for including them in their petition. Nakpil & Sons answer that the petitioners need not to change the defendants in their petition as UCC deviated from the plans which caused the damages to the building. In the course of the trial a commissioner was appointed by both parties to give a report regarding the technical aspects of the case. His report concluded that indeed there were faults arising from the negligence of both defendants. The report stated that the design was flawed and that UCC deviated from the designs which aggravated the problem. The defendants then put up the Act of God. Issue: Whether or not the defendants could escape liability from the building due to a fortuitous event which is unforeseeable and inevitable even if their negligence is established Ruling: The general rule is that no person shall be responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, were inevitable (Article 1174, New Civil Code). An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented. (1 Corpus Juris 1174). There is no dispute that the earthquake of August 2, 1968 is a fortuitous event or an act of God. To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an "act of God," the following 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 fulfil 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. Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.