CASABUENA V. CA
The CA affirmed the lower court’s finding
G.R. No. 115410, February 27, 1998
Petitioner: Juan Casabuena
Respondents: CA and Spouses Ciriaco & Ofelia
Urdaneta
FACTS:
1. Private respondents Spouses Urdaneta
were granted a parcel of land by a reform
program of the City Government of
Manila.
2. The Urdanetas assigned their rights and
interests in ½ of the lot to a certain
Arsenia Benin to cover full payment of
their debt of P500.
3. Having additional debt, the Urdanetas
executed another deed of assignment
now involving the whole lot with Benin
agreeing to shoulder all obligations and
so a TCT was issued in the name of the
Urdanetas.
4. Consequently, the administration of the
lot was assigned by Benin to brothers
Casabuena, transferring her right, title
and interest for a consideration of money.
5. After the lot was fully paid by the
Urdanetas, a Release of Mortagage was
executed under which, the period of non-
alienation of the land was extended from
5 years to 20 years.
6. Petitioner Juan Casabuena was Benin’s
rental collector of his 2-door apartment
constructed on the lot but because of
their soured relationship, Benin named
Angel Tanjuakio as administrator who
later filed an ejectment case against
Juan. However, it was dismissed.
7. Upon learning the litigation between
Casabuena and Benin, the Urdanetas
demanded them to vacate the property.
Upon refusal, The Urdanetas filed for
ejectment and recovery of possession of
the property against Casabuena.
However, the case was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
8. This led the Urdanetas and Benin to
enter into an agreement for the return of
the property with the duplex constructed
therein. The Urdanetas were declare the
true and lawful owners of the lot.
9.
that the deed of assignment to Benin only
served as evidence of Urdanetas debt to
her in view of the prohibition against the
sale of the land.
10. An MR was denied and so this petition for
review on certiorari arguing that the
assignment was made by Benin as
creditor of Spouses Urdaneta therefore
allowing Benin to transfer ownership of
the property to Casabuena.
ISSUE: WON a deed of assignment transfer
ownership of the property to the assignee. [NO]
RULING:
In the case at bar, the Casabuenas merely
stepped into Benin’s shoes, who was a mere
assignee of the rights of her debtors. Not having
acquired any right over the land in question, it
follows that Benin took nothing from the
defendants Urdanetas with respect to the
property.
By mortgaging a piece of property, the
Urdanetas merely subjects it to a lien but
ownership thereof is not parted with.
An assignment of credit is the process of
transferring the right of the assignor to the
assignee, allowing the latter to proceed against
the debtor.
The act of assignment could not have operated
to delete liens or restrictions burdening the right
assigned, because an assignee cannot acquire
a greater right than the assignor. At most, an
assignee can only acquire rights duplicating
those which his assignor is entitled by law.
Spouses Urdaneta remained the owners of the
lot in question. The decision of the CA is
affirmed.