Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84188:59610&catid=1594&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:40:43+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 207747, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES CHIN KONG WONG CHOI AND ANA O. CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.
SPOUSES CHIN KONG WONG CHOI AND ANA O. CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.
This petition for review1 assails the Decision2 dated 29 January 2013 as well as the Resolution3 dated 27 May 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117831. The CA reversed the Decision4 dated 1 June 2010 and Resolution5 dated 5 January 2011 of the Office of the President (OP), and ruled that its decisions in the cases of UCPB v. O’Halloran6 and UCPB v. Liam7 shall apply in the present case, following the doctrine of stare decisis.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered suspending the proceedings of the present case. The complainants are therefore directed to file their claim before the Rehabilitation Receiver.
No judgment as to the costs.
2. Respondents UCPB and PPGI, jointly and severally, are declared liable to the complainant for payment of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and attorney’s fees in the amount of P30,000.00.
In a Decision dated 1 June 2010,18 the OP, through the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Agustin S. Dizon, affirmed the decision of the HLURB BOC. The OP held that UCPB, being Primetown’s successor-in-interest, was jointly and severally liable with Primetown for its failure to deliver the condominium unit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 1, 2010 and Resolution dated January 5, 2011 of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 08-F-213, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated November 29, 2006 of the HLURB-Regional Field Office is REINSTATED.
The primordial issue to be resolved is whether, under the Agreement between Primetown and UCPB, UCPB assumed the liabilities and obligations of Primetown under its contract to sell with Spouses Choi.
It was not clear whether the “amount not exceeding 30,000,000.00, Philippine currency” in the Agreement referred to receivables or liabilities.34 Under the Rules of Court, when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.35 The Memorandum of Agreement’s whereas clauses provided that Primetown desired to settle its obligation with UCPB.36 Therefore, the tenor of the Agreement is clearly in favor of UCPB. Thus, the excluded amount referred to receivables.
In UCPB v. Ho,41 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113446, respondent Ho was similarly situated with O’Halloran and Spouses Choi. Upon reaching the CA, the CA considered the Agreement between UCPB and Primetown as an assignment of credit, because: 1) the parties entered into the Agreement without the consent of the debtor; 2) UCPB’s obligation “to deliver to the buyer the title over the condominium unit upon their full payment” signifies that the title to the condominium unit remained with Primetown; 3) UCPB’s prerogative “to rescind the contract to sell and transfer the title of condominium unit to its name upon failure of the buyer to pay the full purchase price” indicates that UCPB was merely given the right to transfer title in its name to apply the property as partial payment of Primetown’s obligation; and 4) the Agreement clearly states that the assignment is limited to the receivables and does not include “any and all liabilities which [Primetown] may have assumed under the individual contract to sell.” Thus, the CA ruled that UCPB was a mere assignee of the right of Primetown to collect on its contract to sell with Ho. The CA, then, applied the ruling in UCPB v. O’Halloran in finding UCPB jointly liable with Primetown only for the payments UCPB had actually received from Ho.
On 4 December 2013, this Court issued a Resolution42 denying Ho’s petition for review for failure to show any reversible error on the part of the CA. On 2 April 2014, this Court likewise denied the motion for reconsideration with finality.43 Thus, the 9 May 2013 Decision of the Special Fifteenth Division of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 113446 became final and executory.
Considering that UCPB is a mere assignee of the rights and receivables under the Agreement, UCPB did not assume the obligations and liabilities of Primetown under its contract to sell with Spouses Choi.
In an assignment of credit, the vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the existence and legality of the credit at the time of the sale.44 In Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc.,45 the Court ruled that the assignee did not acquire the burden of unpaid taxes over the assigned property, since what was transferred only were the rights, title and interest over the property.
Contrary to Spouses Choi’s argument that UCPB was estopped, we find that estoppel would not lie since UCPB’s letters to the buyers only assured them of the completion of their units by the developer.46 UCPB did not represent to be the new owner of Kiener or that UCPB itself would complete Kiener.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision dated 29 January 2013 and the Resolution dated 27 May 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117831. We ORDER respondent United Coconut Planters Bank to RETURN to petitioner spouses Chin Kong Wong Choi and Ana O. Chua the amount of P26,292.97, with 12% interest per annum from the time of its receipt on 3 February 1999 until 30 June 2013, then 6% interest per annum from 1 July 2013 until fully paid.
Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rollo, pp. 4-70.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion- Vicente and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla concurring. Id. at 72-81.
6 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring. Id. at 917-931.
7 Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring. Id. at 932-944.
24Ledonio v. Capitol Development Corporation, 553 Phil. 344 (2007); Aquintey v. Sps. Tibong, 540 Phil. 422 (2006); South City Homes, Inc. v. BA Finance Corporation, 423 Phil. 84 (2001); Project Builders, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 264 (2001); Nyco Sales v. BA Finance, Corporation, G.R. No. 71694, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 637; Manila Banking Corp. v. Teodoro, Jr., 251 Phil. 98 (1989).
25Manila Banking Corp. v. Teodoro, Jr., 251 Phil. 98 (1989) citing Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 5, pp. 165-166.
26Aquintey v. Sps. Tibong, 540 Phil. 422 (2006).
31 CIVIL CODE, Article 1370.
32Aquintey v. Sps. Tibong, supra.
33 Civil Code, Article 1371.
34UCPB v. O’Halloran, CA-G.R. SP. No. 101699, 23 July 2009. Rollo, p. 928.
35 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 17.
38 Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Franchito N. Diamante concurring. Rollo, pp. 965-976.
44 Civil Code, Article 1628.
45 197 Phil. 394 (1982).
47 654 Phil. 315 (2011).
48 G.R. No. 155113, 9 January 2013, 688 SCRA 200.
49 Civil Code, Article 1207.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.