# 47. TITAN-IKEDA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS.

PRIMETOWN
PROPERTY, INC.
466 SCRA 544| Corona, J. | 12 February 2008
Article 1169 (Delay)

DOCTRINE: Mora or delay is the failure to perform the obligation in due time because of dolo (malice)
or culpa (negligence). A debtor is deemed to have violated his obligation to the creditor from the time the
latter makes a demand. Once the creditor makes a demand, the debtor incurs mora or delay.

FACTS:
Respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc. awarded a structural works of its 32-storey Makati Prime
Tower (MPT) to petitioner Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation. The parties has
finalized their agreement on February 4, 1993. Upon accomplishment of MPT’s structural works, the
parties have executed a supplemental agreement consisting of another contract for the respondent’s
tower’s architectural work.

In September 1995, respondent engaged the services of Integratech, Inc. (ITI), an engineering consultancy
firm, to evaluate the progress of the project. The evaluation came out with the result that the petitioner had
only accomplished 31.89% of the project and that the petitioner is 11 months and six days behind the
agreed schedule. Petitioner and respondent were discussing the possibility of the latter’s take over of the
project’s supervision. Despite ongoing negotiations, respondent did not obtain petitioner’s consent in hiring
ITI as the project’s construction manager.

On November 22, 1996, petitioner demanded the payment of the undue balance of the respondent and
because of the respondent’s avoidance of the former’s demand, the petitioner filed a complaint against the
respondent for specific performance in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). For the
respondent’s contention, it prayed for the reimbursement of the value of the project’s unfinished portion
amounting to P66,677,000. The RTC has favored the petitioner but the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision and asked the petitioner to reimburse the said unfinished portion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner in the case at bar has caused a delay in his obligation. – NO

HELD:
No, the petitioner did not cause a delay in his obligation. The petitioner and the respondent had stipulated
in their contract that once there has been more than fifteen percent delay in the scheduled program, the
respondent should notify the petitioner in writing to accelerate the work and reduce, if not erase, slippage.

A delay is the failure to perform the obligation in due time because of dolo (malice) or culpa (negligence). A
debtor is deemed to have violated his obligation to the creditor from the time the latter makes a demand.
Once the creditor makes a demand, the debtor incurs mora or delay. Since there has been no notification,
it may be assumed that there is also no demand from the respondents as per the definition and their
agreement.

Therefore, the petitioner did not incur delay in the performance of its obligation.