Title
Hirakawa vs. Lopzcom Realty Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 213230
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2019
A Japanese assignee sued for unpaid checks after a realty deal; SC ruled it a collection suit, not breach of contract, remanding for merits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 218040)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Lopzcom Realty Corporation is a domestic realty-development corporation; Atty. Gari M. Tiongco is its President and Chairman.
    • Naoaki Hirakawa, a Japanese national, is represented by his agent, Erica M. Shibamura.
  • Deed of Sale and Assignment of Checks
    • On December 28, 1995, Takezo Sakai sold Windfields Subdivision (92 hectares in Consolacion, Cebu) to Lopzcom for ₱100,000,000.00, paid by nine Westmont Bank postdated checks.
    • On September 30, 1996, Sakai assigned four of those checks (totaling ₱65,000,000.00) to Hirakawa; Lopzcom and Tiongco were informed and agreed to the assignment.
  • Replacement and Dishonor of Checks
    • After encashment of the first check, Hirakawa requested replacement of the remaining Westmont checks in his name; respondents issued three PDCP Development Bank postdated checks drawn on Tiongco’s personal account.
    • The PDCP check due October 30, 1997 was deferred and later paid with 18% annual interest; the October 30, 1998 and October 30, 1999 checks were dishonored for “account closed.”
  • Deed of Assignment of Golf Shares and Further Defaults
    • On February 9, 1999, respondents assigned shares in a proposed golf-course joint venture (valued at ₱40,000,000.00) as full payment of the remaining obligation; no shares were ever issued to Hirakawa.
    • Hirakawa discovered the non-development in 2002; respondents then issued two PNB postdated checks (₱20,000,000.00 each) due October 2004 and October 2005, both of which remained unfunded despite extensions.
  • Demand, Filing of Complaint, and Trial Court Proceedings
    • On March 22, 2010, Hirakawa served a final demand; as of December 2009, respondents’ indebtedness was ₱114,027,812.22 (inclusive of interest).
    • On June 22, 2010, he sued for breach of contract and attachment; the RTC initially granted a writ of preliminary attachment, later discharged it upon respondents’ counter-bond.
    • Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and legal capacity; the RTC denied the motion (May 15 and August 28, 2012).
  • Court of Appeals Ruling and SC Petition
    • On November 19, 2013, the CA, via Rule 65 certiorari, reversed the RTC and dismissed the complaint for want of cause of action; its July 8, 2014 resolution denied motions for reconsideration.
    • Hirakawa petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in dismissing a collection suit mis-captioned as breach of contract.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in dismissing Hirakawa’s complaint for alleged lack of cause of action against respondents?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.