Good Day Atty.

Liza,
Here is my research about the topic you assigned to me regarding defects in buildings. The
provisions in Articles 1723, 2190 and 2192 in relation to torts are not applicable in the cause of the client.
This is because of the fact that the said provisions only applies if the building collapses, either partially or
totally. Hence the above mentioned provisions will not help us bolster the cause of our client.
However, article 1719 on the provisions for contract for piece of work, it mentions of as an
exception as to who will be liable for any defect in a work if the defects are hidden.
Art. 1719. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect
in the work, unless:
(1)

The defect is hidden and the employer is not, by his special knowledge,
expected to recognize the same; or

(2)

The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of
the defect.

Hence under the given circumstances the provisions on warranty against hidden defects, under the law on
sales will be relevant, as follows:
Art. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing
sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its
fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it
or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those
which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of his trade
or profession, should have known them.
Art. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold,
even though he was not aware thereof.
This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated, and the vendor was not aware of
the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold.

Inorder for a claim under the Art. 1561, the Supreme Court said in the case of Nutrimix feeds corp. vs.
CA, October 25, 2004, G.R. No. 152219, the following requisites must be present:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

the defect must be hidden;

the defect must exist at the time the sale was made;
the defect must ordinarily have been excluded from the contract;
the defect, must be important;
the action must be instituted within the statutes of limitations.

Futher, the law requires that the defect should be hidden, and the Supreme Court defined hidden in the
case of SUPERCARS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE LATE
FILEMON FLORES, G.R. No. 148173, December 10, 2004, as:
A hidden defect is one which is unknown or could not have been known to the vendee.

For there to have a valid claim under the circumstances of our client, it is very material that the defects in
the said property must be the defects that are contemplated by the Supreme Court. Further, it must be
shown that the defect was already in existence at the time of the sale. The defect in the thing sold must not
also be excluded by virtue of a contract. The defect must also render the thing unfit or the said defect
decreases its fitness. Lastly the action to claim for damages for the breach of warranty against hidden defects
must be filed within the statutes of limitations as will be discussed later.
The law did not limit its application to a particular property, since the mentions thing sold, it can be either
personal or real property. There is no existing jurisprudence on the matter, but by simply reading the law,
we can interpret it to apply to both real and personal property.
However, if a warranty will be enforced under the above mentioned provisions the period to enforce the
claim will be 6 months from the delivery of the thing sold, as the law provides:
Art. 1571. Actions arising from the provisions of the preceding ten articles shall be barred after six
months from the delivery of the thing sold.

In CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN vs. TOYOTA CUBAO, INC., G.R. No. 141480, November 29, 2006, the
Supreme Court held that:
By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied
warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should
have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold.
Hence, under the circumstances, a claim for damages for breach of warranty against hidden defects must be
filed within 6 months from delivery of the thing sold. Otherwise, we cannot use the provisions to claim for
damages for the defects in the real property bought by the client.