G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Fong

G.R. No.
209370, March 25, 2015

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Fong
Doctrine:
By virtue of the Deed of Assignment, the assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights and obligations of the assignor
and is bound by exactly the same conditions as those which bound the assignor. The general rule is that an assignee
of a non-negotiable chose in action acquires no greater right than what was possessed by his assignor and simply
stands into the shoes of the latter.
Facts:
On June 5, 2000, FBDC, a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate development business,entered into a
Trade Contract with MS Maxco Company..Under the Trade Contract, FBDC had the option to hire other contractors
to rectify any errors committed by MS Maxco by reason of its negligence, act, omission, or default, as well as to
deduct or set-off any amount from the contract price in such cases.Hence, when MS Maxco incurred delays and
failed to comply with the terms of the Trade Contract, FBDC took over and hired other contractors to complete the
unfinished construction.
Sometime in April 2005, FBDC received a letter14 dated April 18, 2005 from the counsel of Fong informing it that
MS Maxco had already assigned its receivables from FBDC to him (Fong) by virtue of a notarized Deed of
Assignment. Despite Fong’s repeated requests, FBDC refused to deliver to Fong the amount assigned by MS
Maxco.
RTC: RTC held that the instant case was one of assignment of credit under Article 1624 of the Civil Code, hence,
did not require FBDC’s consent as debtor for its validity and enforceability.
CA: Denied FBDC’s appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling
Issues(s):
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that FBDC was bound by the Deed of Assignment between MS Maxco and
Fong, and even assuming that it was,
Whether or not FBDC was liable to pay Fong the amount of ?1,577,115.90, representing a portion of MS Maxco’s
retention money.
Held:
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied
with in good faith. As such, the stipulations in contracts are binding on them unless the contract is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties,
their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible
by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he
received from the decedent. Case law states that when a person assigns his credit to another person, the latter is
deemed subrogated to the rights as well as to the obligations of the former. By virtue of the Deed of Assignment, the
assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights and obligations of the assignor and is bound by exactly the same
conditions as those which bound the assignor.
G.R. No. 213582, September 12, 2018

NYMPHA S. ODIAMAR,*Petitioner, v. LINDA ODIAMAR VALENCIA, Respondent.
Doctrine:
Anent monetary interest, it is an elementary rule that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated
in writing. In this case, no monetary interest may be imposed on the loan obligation, considering that there was no
written agreement expressly providing for such.
Facts:
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Linda Odiamar Valencia (respondent)
assailing the Decision dated June 28, 2016 of the Court which affirmed the Decision dated March 16, 2012 and the
Resolutio dated July 14, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 93624, with modification ordering
petitioner Nympha S. Odiamar (petitioner) to pay respondent the amount of P1,010,049.00 representing the
remaining balance of petitioner's debt to the latter in the original amount of P1,400,000.00.
In said motion, respondent prays for the imposition of legal interest on the monetary award due her.She likewise
insists that petitioner's loan obligation to her is not just P1,400,000.00 but P2,100,000.00 and, as such, she should be
made to pay the latter amount.
Issue:
WON Respondent should be held liable for the whole debt
Held:
NO. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of
money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall
itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest
shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to
the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes
final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall
be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Fong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Fong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Fong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

209370, March 25, 2015

CA: Denied FBDC’s appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling

G.R. No. 213582, September 12, 2018

WON Respondent should be held liable for the whole debt

You might also like