Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.: VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 183

7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.

*
G.R. No. 149420. October 8, 2003.
SONNY LO, petitioner, vs. KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM PHIL., INC., respondent.
Civil Law; Sales; Obligations; Assignment of Credit; Definition of an assignment of credit.—An

assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a
legal cause, such as sale, dacion en pago,exchange or donation, and without the consent of the debtor,
transfers his credit and accessory rights to another, known as the assignee, who acquires the power to
enforce it to the same extent as the assignor could enforce it against the debtor.
Same; Same; Same; Dacion En Pago; In dacion en pago, as a special mode of payment, the debtor offers
another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding debt; Requisites in
order that there be a valid dation in payment.—Corollary thereto, in dacion en pago, as a special mode of
payment, the debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an
outstanding debt. In order that there be a valid dation in payment, the following are the requisites: (1)
There must be the performance of the prestation in lieu of payment (animo solvendi) which may consist in
the delivery of a corporeal thing or a real right or a credit against the third person; (2) There must be some
difference between the prestation due and that which is given in substitution (aliud pro alio); (3) There must
be an agreement between the creditor and debtor that the obligation is immediately extinguished by reason
of the performance of a prestation different from that due.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The assignment of credit, which is in the nature of a sale of personal property,
produced the effects of a dation in payment which may extinguish the obligation.—It may well be that the
assignment of credit, which is in the nature of a sale of personal property, produced the effects of a dation in
payment which may extinguish the obligation. However, as in any other contract of sale, the vendor or
assignor is bound by certain warranties. More specifically, the first paragraph of Article 1628 of the Civil
Code provides: The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the existence and legality of the credit at the
time of the sale, unless it should have been sold as doubtful; but not for the solvency of the debtor, unless it
has been so expressly stipulated or unless the insolvency was prior to the sale and of common knowledge.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
183
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 183

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Arturo S. Santos for petitioner.
E.P. Mallari & Associates for private respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Respondent KJS ECO-FORMWORK System Phil., Inc. is a corporation engaged in the sale of
steel scaffoldings, while petitioner Sonny L. Lo, doing business under the name and style San’s
Enterprises, is a building contractor. On February 22, 1990, petitioner ordered scaffolding
1
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1efb2feae5f6c979003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
1
equipments from respondent worth P540,425.80. He paid a downpayment in the amount of
P150,000.00. The balance was made payable in ten monthly
2
installments.
Respondent delivered the scaffoldings to petitioner. Petitioner was able to pay the first two
monthly installments. His business, however, encountered financial difficulties and he was
unable
3
to settle his obligation to respondent despite oral and written demands made against
him. 4
On October 11, 1990, petitioner and respondent executed a Deed of Assignment, whereby
petitioner assigned to respondent his receivables in the amount of P335,462.14 from Jomero
Realty Corporation. Pertinent portions of the Deed provide:
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR is the contractor for the construction of a residential house located at
Greenmeadow Avenue, Quezon City owned by Jomero Realty Corporation;
WHEREAS, in the construction of the aforementioned residential house, the ASSIGNOR purchased on
account scaffolding equipments from the ASSIGNEE payable to the latter;
WHEREAS, up to the present the ASSIGNOR has an obligation to the ASSIGNEE for the purchase of the
aforementioned scaffoldings now in
_______________
1 Exhibit “A,” Records, p. 128.
2 Exhibits “B-B-8,” Records, pp. 130-138.
3 Exhibit “C,” Records, p. 139.
4 Records, pp. 142-143.
184
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the amount of Three Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two and 14/100 Pesos
(P335,462.14);
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Four
Hundred Sixty Two and 14/100 Pesos (P335,462.14), Philippine Currency which represents part of the
ASSIGNOR’S collectible from Jomero Realty Corp., said ASSIGNOR hereby assigns, transfers and sets over
unto the ASSIGNEE all collectibles amounting to the said amount of P335,462.14;
And the ASSIGNOR does hereby grant the ASSIGNEE, its successors and assigns, the full power and
authority to demand, collect, receive, compound, compromise and give acquittance for the same or any part
thereof, and in the name and stead of the said ASSIGNOR;
And the ASSIGNOR does hereby agree and stipulate to and with said ASSIGNEE, its successors and
assigns that said debt is justly owing and due to the ASSIGNOR for Jomero Realty Corporation and that
said ASSIGNOR has not done and will not cause anything to be done to diminish or discharge said debt, or
delay or to prevent the ASSIGNEE, its successors or assigns, from collecting the same;
And the ASSIGNOR further agrees and stipulates as aforesaid that the said ASSIGNOR, his heirs,
executors, administrators, or assigns, shall and will at times hereafter, at the request of said ASSIGNEE, its
successors or assigns, at his cost and expense, execute and do all such further acts and deeds as shall be
reasonably necessary to effectually enable said ASSIGNEE to recover whatever 5
collectibles said ASSIGNOR
has in accordance with the true intent and meaning of these presents. x x x (Italics supplied)
However, when respondent tried to collect the said credit from Jomero Realty Corporation, the
latter refused6 to honor the Deed of Assignment because it 7claimed that petitioner was also
indebted to it. On November 26, 1990, respondent sent a letter to petitioner demanding payment
of his obligation, but petitioner refused to pay claiming that his obligation had been extinguished
when they executed the Deed of Assignment.
Consequently, on January 10, 1991, respondent filed an action for recovery of a sum of money
against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 147, which was docketed
8
8
as Civil Case No. 91-074.
_______________
5 Records, p. 142.
6 TSN, April 28, 1993, p. 25.
7 Exhibit “C,” Records, p. 139.
8 Records, pp. 1-6.
185
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 185

During the trial, petitioner argued that his obligation was extinguished with the execution of the
Deed of Assignment of credit. Respondent, for its part, presented the testimony of its employee,
Almeda Bañaga, who testified that Jomero ‘Realty refused to honor the assignment of credit
because it claimed that petitioner had an outstanding indebtedness
9
to it.
On August 25, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the
ground that the assignment of credit extinguished the obligation. The decretal portion thereof
provides:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the defendant and
against the plaintiff, dismissing the complaint and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant attorney’s fees
in the amount of P25,000.00.”
Respondent appealed 10
the decision to the Court of Appeals. On April 19, 2001, the appellate court
rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding merit in this appeal, the court REVERSES the appealed Decision and enters
judgment ordering defendant-appellee Sonny Lo to pay the plaintiff-appellant KJS ECO-FORMWORK
SYSTEM PHILIPPINES, INC. Three Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Two and 14/100
(P335,462.14) with legal interest of 6% per annum from January 10, 1991 (filing of the Complaint) until
fully paid and attorney’s
11
fees equivalent to 10% of the amount due and-costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.”
In finding that the Deed of Assignment did not extinguish the obligation of the petitioner to the
respondent, the Court of Appeals held that (1) petitioner failed to comply with his warranty
under the Deed; (2) the object of the Deed did not exist at the time of the transaction, rendering it
void pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code; and (3) petitioner violated the terms of the Deed
of Assignment when he failed to execute and do all acts and deeds as shall
_______________
9 Penned by Judge Teofilo L. Guadiz, Jr.
10 Penned by Justice Hilarion L. Aquino with Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and
Jose L. Sabio, Jr., concurring.
11 Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 47713, p. 6; Rollo, p. 14.
186

12
be necessary to effectually enable the respondent to recover the collectibles.
Petitioner filed13 a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, which was denied by the
Court of Appeals.
In this petition for review, petitioner assigns the following errors:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN DECLARING THE DEED
OF ASSIGNMENT (EXH. “4”) AS NULL AND VOID FOR LACK OF OBJECT ON THE BASIS OF A MERE
HEARSAY CLAIM.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT
(EXH. “4”) DID NOT EXTINGUISH PETITIONER’S OBLIGATION ON THE WRONG NOTION THAT
PETITIONER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS WARRANTY THEREUNDER.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION

14
OF THE TRIAL
COURT AND IN ORDERING PAYMENT OF INTERESTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.
The petition is without merit.

An assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the
assignor, by a legal cause, such as sale, dacion en pago, exchange or donation, and without the
consent of the debtor, transfers his credit and accessory rights to another, known as the assignee,
who acquires
15
the power to enforce it to the same extent as the assignor could enforce it against
the debtor.
Corollary thereto, in dacion en pago, as a special mode of payment, the debtor offers another
thing to the creditor who accepts it
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 9-14.
13 Rollo, p. 50.
14 Petition, pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 24-25.
15 South City Homes, Inc., et al. v. BA Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 135462, 7 December 2001, 371 SCRA 603.
187
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 187

16
as equivalent of payment of an outstanding debt. In order that there be a valid dation in
payment, the following are the requisites: (1) There must be the performance of the prestation in
lieu of payment (animo solvendi) which may consist in the delivery of a corporeal thing or a real
right or a credit against the third person; (2) There must be some difference between the
prestation due and that which is given in substitution (aliud pro alio); (3) There must be an
agreement between the creditor and debtor that the obligation is immediately
17
extinguished by
reason of the performance of a prestation different from that due. The undertaking really
partakes in one sense of the nature of sale, that is, the creditor is really buying the thing or
property of the debtor, payment for which is to be charged against the debtor’s debt. As such, the
vendor in good faith shall be responsible, for the existence and legality of18the credit at the time of
the sale but not for the solvency of the debtor, in specified circumstances.
Hence,19it may well be that the assignment of credit, which is in the nature of a sale of personal
property, produced
20
the effects of a dation in payment which may extinguish the
obligation. However, as in any other contract of sale, the vendor or assignor is bound by certain
warranties. More specifically, the first paragraph of Article 1628 of the Civil Code provides:
The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the existence and legality of the credit at the time of the
sale, unless it should have been sold as doubtful; but not for the solvency of the debtor, unless it has been so
_______________
16 FilinvestCredit Corporation v. Philippine Acetylene, Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-50449, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 421.
17 3Castan, Vol. I, 8th Ed., page 283 cited in IV Caguioa ‘Comments and Cases in Civil Law, page 325.
18 Civil Code, Article 1628. The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the existence and legality of the credit at the time of the
sale unless it should have been sold as doubtful; but not for the solvency of the debtor, unless it has been so expressly stipulated or
unless the solvency was prior to the sale and of common knowledge. x x x
19 Civil Code, Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums, and x x x.
20 Civil Code, Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:

(1) By payment or performance; x x x.
188

expressly stipulated or unless the insolvency was prior to the sale and of common knowledge.
From the above provision, petitioner, as vendor or assignor, is bound to warrant the existence
and legality of the credit at the time of the sale or assignment. When Jomero claimed that it was
no longer indebted to petitioner since the latter also had an unpaid obligation to21 it, it essentially
meant that its obligation to petitioner has been extinguished by compensation. In other words,
respondent alleged the non-existence of the credit and asserted its claim to petitioner’s warranty
under the assignment. Therefore, it behooved on petitioner to make good its warranty and paid
the obligation.
Furthermore, we find that petitioner breached his obligation under the Deed of Assignment, to
wit:
And the ASSIGNOR further agrees and stipulates as aforesaid that the said ASSIGNOR, his heirs,
executors, administrators, or assigns, shall and will at times hereafter, at the request of said ASSIGNEE, its
successors or assigns, at his cost and expense, execute and do all such further acts and deeds as shall be
reasonably necessary to effectually enable said ASSIGNEE to recover22 whatever collectibles said ASSIGNOR
has in accordance with the true intent and meaning of these presents. (italics ours)
Indeed, by warranting the existence of the credit, petitioner should be deemed to have ensured
the performance thereof in case the same is later found to be inexistent. He should be held liable
to pay to respondent the amount of his indebtedness.
Hence, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering petitioner to pay respondent the
sum of P335,462.14 with legal interest thereon. However, we find that the award by the Court of
Appeals of attorney’s fees is without factual basis. No evidence or testimony was presented to
substantiate this claim. Attorney’s fees, being in the nature of actual damages, must be duly
substantiated by competent proof.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 19,
2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 47713,
_______________
21 Civil Code, Art. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own rights, are creditors and
debtors of each other.

22 Records, p. 143.
189
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 189

Oaminal vs. Castillo
ordering petitioner to pay respondent the sum of P335,462.14 with legal interest of 6% per
annum from January 10, 1991 until fully paid is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Upon
finality of this Decision, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum,
23
inasmuch as the
obligation shall thereafter become equivalent to a forbearance of credit. The award of attorney’s
fees is DELETED for lack of evidentiary basis.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.—One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it and even where the plaintiff
must allege non-payment the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. (Audion Electric Co., Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 308 SCRA 340 [1999])

Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.: VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 183

Uploaded by

Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.: VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 183

Uploaded by

7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader

Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc.

SONNY LO, petitioner, vs. KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM PHIL., INC., respondent.

Civil Law; Sales; Obligations; Assignment of Credit; Definition of an assignment of credit.—An

VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 183

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 185

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION

The petition is without merit.

VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 187

20 Civil Code, Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

debtors of each other.

VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 189

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

You might also like