Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Santos [OBLICON]

LEDONIO v. CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3. When did the obligation arise: When Ms. Picache executed
Topic: Kinds of Subrogation an assignment of credit in favor of Capitol Development Corp.

VOCABULARY: FACTS:
Assignment of credit an agreement by virtue of which the Petitioner obtained two loans totaling P60, 000.00 from
owner of a credit (known as the assignor) by legal cause Ms. Picache, for which he executed promissory notes,
such as sale, dation in payment or exchange or donation dated 9 November 1988 and 10 November 1988.
and without need of the debtors consent, transfers that credit He failed to pay any of the said loans;
and its accessory rights to another (known as the assignee), Ms. Picache executed on 1 April 1989 an Assignment of
who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent as the Credit covering petitioner's loans in favor of respondent
assignor could have enforced it against the debtor. for the consideration of P60,000.00;
Subrogation is the transfer of all rights of the creditor to a Petitioner had knowledge of the assignment of credit;
third person, who substitutes him in all rights It may be either Petitioner still failed to pay his indebtedness despite
legal or conventional. repeated demands by respondent and its counsel.
Legal Subrogation takes place without agreement but by The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent herein
operation of law because of certain acts. The CA confirmed the ruling of the RTC
Conventional Subrogation which takes place by Petitioner argued that he never gave consent to such
agreement of parties. assignment of credit and therefore it should have no
effect.
DOCTRINE:
Distinction between an assignment of credit and a conventional ISSUE: WON consent of the debtor is required in an assignment of
subrogation: credit
In an assignment of credit, the consent of the debtor is not necessary
in order that the assignment may fully produce the legal effects. What HELD:
the law requires in an assignment of credit is not the consent of the No
debtor, but merely notice to him as the assignment takes effect only The Court herein ruled that in an assignment of credit, consent
from the time he has knowledge thereof. A creditor may, therefore, is immaterial
validly assign his credit and its accessories without the debtor's Consent is not a requirement in assignment of credit in order
consent. On the other hand, conventional subrogation requires an for the said assignment to have full legal effects
agreement among the parties concerned the original creditor, the
What the law requires is that the debtor would be duly
debtor, and the new creditor. It is a new contractual relation based on
notified upon the issuance of an assignment of credit to a
the mutual agreement among all the necessary parties.
third person
The said assignment of credit takes effect only from the time
SHORT ANSWERS:
he (the debtor) has knowledge thereof
1. When did the problem start: When Ledonio failed and
refused to settle his indebtedness to Capitol Development In the case at bar, the petitioner cannot deny that he wasnt
Corp. notified by the respondent when the assignment of credit
2. Who was chasing who: Capitol Development Corp. was happened. It can be reasonably presumed that when the
chasing Ledonio respondent, together with their counsel, sent demand letters
to the petitioner herein, the same had received them. The
Santos [OBLICON]

letters were sent through registered mail and the return cards
were signed by the petitioners agent.
Further, petitioner never questioned why it was respondent
seeking payment of the loans and not the original creditor.
Foregoing the said circumstances, it can be concluded that
the petitioner was duly notified and had knowledge of the
assignment of credit that took place between respondent
herein and Ms. Picache.