Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


The CA affirmed the lower court’s finding

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