Short answer. No, a force majeure does not always excuse you. Article 1174 of the Civil Code frees you from events that could not be foreseen or were unavoidable, but not in three situations: when the law expressly says so, when your contract stipulates it, or when the nature of the obligation requires you to assume the risk.
What the law says
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Civil Code, Article 1174 — Fortuitous Events. Read the full provision →
The general rule: acts of God excuse performance
The starting point favors the person who could not perform. Article 1174 of the Civil Code lays down that, as a rule, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. This is the legal home of "force majeure" or fortuitous events, the flood, earthquake, or other calamity that makes performance impossible through no one's fault. If a genuine fortuitous event prevents you from doing what you promised, the law will not hold you liable for the resulting damage or delay. But this general excuse is not absolute, and the article itself names when it does not apply.
What counts as a fortuitous event
The article describes two kinds of covered events: those which could not be foreseen, and those which, though foreseen, were inevitable. So the excuse is not limited to total surprises. Even an event you saw coming, such as an approaching typhoon, can still excuse you if it was impossible to avoid or resist. The common thread is that the event must be independent of your will and must make performance genuinely impossible, not merely harder or more expensive. An event you could have prevented with ordinary care, or one caused partly by your own act, does not qualify as fortuitous under this rule.
The three times you are still liable
The article carves out three exceptions where you remain responsible even after a fortuitous event. You are still liable in cases expressly specified by the law, where a specific statute pins the risk on you regardless. You are still liable when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, meaning your own contract said you would bear the loss even from an act of God. And you are still liable when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, where the very kind of undertaking you took on means you accepted the danger. In any of these three, the calamity is no defense.
Why the exceptions matter
These exceptions matter because they let contracts and specific laws shift risk deliberately. A supplier might agree, in writing, to deliver "come what may" and thereby give up the fortuitous-event defense. Certain obligations, by their nature, such as those of a party already in delay, carry the risk with them. The lesson for anyone signing a contract is to read the risk clauses carefully: a force-majeure clause can widen the protection, but a stipulation assuming the risk can take it away. Article 1174 sets the default, but the parties and the law can change the outcome.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Globe Telecom Inc., et al, G.R. No. 147324, May 25, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Roberto C. Sicam, et al. vs. Lullu V. Jorge, et al, G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine Realty and Holding Corp. vs. Ley Const. and Dev. Corp./Ley Cons. and Dev. Corp. vs. Philippine Realty and Holding Corp, G.R. No. 165548 / G.R. No. 167879, June 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Filonila O. Cruz vs. Hon. Celso D. Gangan, et al, G.R. No. 143403, January 22, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →