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 Summary (G.R. No. 213230)

Petitioner

Naoaki Hirakawa claims to be assignee of four postdated checks representing part of the proceeds from the sale of the Windfields Subdivision project in Consolacion, Cebu City, and seeks collection of those checks and accrued damages.

Respondents

Lopzcom Realty Corporation and Atty. Gari Tiongco contend that Hirakawa was neither party to the Deed of Sale nor assignee of the underlying contract, and thus lacks cause of action.

Key Dates

• December 28, 1995: Sale of Windfields Subdivision for ₱100 million.
• September 30, 1996: Sakai assigns four postdated checks totaling ₱65 million to Hirakawa.
• October 30, 1996–1999: Due dates of assigned checks; only the first is paid.
• February 9, 1999: Deed of Assignment of golf-course shares in lieu of ₱40 million balance.
• October 30, 2004 & 2005: Issuance of two ₱20 million PNB checks, both dishonored or unpaid.
• March 22, 2010: Final demand notice served.
• June 22, 2010: Complaint for breach of contract and attachment filed.
• May 15, 2012: RTC denies respondents’ motion to dismiss.
• November 19, 2013: Court of Appeals reverses and dismisses complaint.
• July 8, 2014: CA denies motions for reconsideration.
• December 5, 2019: Supreme Court decision on certiorari petition.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990).
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1311 (relativity of contracts).
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 (certiorari).

Facts

  1. Lopzcom, through Tiongco, bought Windfields Subdivision from Sakai et al. for ₱100 million, paying by nine Westmont Bank postdated personal checks.
  2. Sakai assigned four of those checks (totaling ₱65 million) to Hirakawa, with respondents’ knowledge and agreement.
  3. Respondents replaced the remaining checks in Hirakawa’s name, drawn on Tiongco’s PDCP account. Only the first PDCP check was honored; the next two were dishonored for closed account.
  4. In 1999 respondents executed a Deed of Assignment of purported golf-course shares as full payment of the ₱40 million balance; no shares were ever issued.
  5. Respondents later issued two PNB postdated checks of ₱20 million each, both unpaid when due, despite extensions.
  6. Hirakawa’s demand and partial payments left an unpaid balance of ₱114,027,812.22 by December 2009.

Procedural History

• Trial Court: Issued ex parte preliminary attachment; discharged upon counter-bond. Denied respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action.
• Court of Appeals: Held that Hirakawa, not a party to the Deed of Sale, had no cause of action; dismissed complaint without prejudice. Denied reconsideration.
• Supreme Court: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing CA exceeded jurisdiction in dismissing a collection suit.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, given that Hirakawa’s suit is essentially a collection action.

Ruling

The Supreme Court grants the petition. It holds that:

  1. Under the principle of relativity of contracts (Art. 1311), Hirakawa cannot sue for breach of the original Deed of Sale, but only for collection of checks and damages arising from respondents’ failure to pay the assigned instruments.
  2. The nature of an action is determined by the averments in the body of the complaint, not by its title. Although m

...continue reading

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