Figuera Vs Ang

1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 795

G.R. No. 204264. June 29, 2016.*

JENNEFER FIGUERA, as substituted by ENHANCE
VISA SERVICES, INC., represented by MA. EDEN R.
DUMONT, petitioner, vs. MARIA REMEDIOS ANG,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for

Review on Certiorari; It is a settled rule that the Supreme
Court (SC) cannot review questions of fact on a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.—It is a settled
rule that the Court cannot review questions of fact on a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A
question of fact exists when the truth or falsity of the
parties’ factual allegations is in dispute. A question of law,
on the other hand, exists when the application of the law
on the stated facts is in controversy. The parties’
description of the questions raised does not determine
whether these questions are of fact or of law. The true test
is whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a
question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.
Same; Same; Same; Same; As a general rule, points of
law, theories, and arguments not brought before the trial
court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and will
not be considered by this Court; otherwise, a denial of the
respondent’s right to due process will result; Exceptions.—
As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments
not brought before the trial court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal and will not be considered by this
Court; otherwise, a denial of the respondent’s right to due
process will result. In the interest of justice, however, the
Court may consider and resolve issues not raised before the
trial court if it is necessary for the complete adjudication of
the rights and obligations of the parties, and it falls within
the issues found by the parties. Thus, an appellate court is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b6d31d5d59d69b8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
clothed with authority to review rulings even if they are

not assigned as errors in the appeal in the following
instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting
jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not
assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or
clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) mat-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

176
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Figuera vs. Ang
ters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of

which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete
resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid
dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned
as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of
record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the
parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e)
matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an
error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal
but upon which the determination of a question properly
assigned, is dependent.
Civil Law; Obligations; Subrogation; Legal Subrogation;
There is legal subrogation when: (a) a creditor pays another
preferred creditor, even without the debtor’s knowledge; (b) a third
person who is not interested in the obligation pays with the express
or tacit approval of the debtor; and (c) a person interested in the
fulfilment of the obligation pays, even without the knowledge of the
debtor.—Article 1291 of the New Civil Code provides that the
subrogation of a third person to the rights of the creditor is one of
the means to modify obligations. Subrogation, sometimes referred
to as substitution, is “an arm of equity that may guide or even
force one to pay a debt for which an obligation was incurred but
which was in whole or in part paid by another.” It transfers to the
person subrogated the credit, with all the rights appertaining
thereto, either against the debtor or against third persons.
Subrogation of a third person in the rights of a creditor may
either be legal or conventional. There is legal subrogation when:
(a) a creditor pays another preferred creditor, even without the
debtor’s knowledge; (b) a third person who is not interested in the

obligation pays with the express or tacit approval of the debtor;
and (c) a person interested in the fulfilment of the obligation pays,
even without the knowledge of the debtor.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The consent or approval of the
debtor is required only if a third person who is not interested in the
fulfilment of the obligation pays such. On the other hand, no such
requirement exists in cases of payment by a creditor to another
creditor who is preferred, and by a person interested in the
fulfilment of the obligation.—A clear reading, however, of Article
1302 of the New Civil Code would lead to a different
conclusion. The consent or approval of the debtor is
required only if a third person who is not interested in the
fulfilment of the obligation pays such.

177
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 177

Figuera vs. Ang
On the other hand, no such requirement exists in cases

of payment by a creditor to another creditor who is
preferred, and by a person interested in the fulfilment of
the obligation. Notably, Article 1302(1) and (3) does not require
the debtor’s knowledge. Therefore, legal subrogation took place
despite the absence of Ang’s consent to Figuera’s payment of the
EIDC bills. Figuera is now deemed as Ang’s creditor by operation
of law.
Same; Same; Compensation; Article 1278 of the New Civil
Code states that there is compensation when two (2) persons, in
their own right, are creditors and debtors of one another.—Article
1278 of the New Civil Code states that there is compensation
when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of
one another. These elements must concur for legal compensation
to apply: (1) each one of the debtors is bound principally, and that
the debtor is at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2)
both debts consist of a sum of money, or if the things due be
consumable, they be of the same kind and also of the same quality
if the latter has been stated; (3) both debts are due; (4) both debts
are liquidated and demandable; and (5) there be no retention or
controversy over both debts commenced by third persons and
communicated in due time to the debtor. When all these elements
are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law and
extinguishes both debts to the corresponding amount, even
though both parties are without knowledge of the

compensation. It operates even against the will of the interested
parties and even without their consent.
Same; Same; Tender of Payment; Words and Phrases; Tender
of payment is the act of offering to the creditor what is due him,
together with the demand for the creditor to accept it.—Tender of
payment is the act of offering to the creditor what is due him,
together with the demand for the creditor to accept it. To be valid,
the tender of payment must be a “fusion of intent, ability, and
capability to make good such offer, which must be absolute and
must cover the amount due.”
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Cabrido & Associates for petitioner.

178

Figuera vs. Ang
Gica, Del Socorro, Espinoza, Villarmia, Fernandez &

Tan for respondent.
BRION, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jennefer
Figuera2 (Figuera) assailing the June 29,
2012 decision3 and the September 28, 2012 resolution4 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cebu City in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
02480.

The Facts

Maria Remedios Ang (Ang) is the registered owner of a
single proprietorship business named “Enhance
Immigration and Documentation Consultants” (EIDC).
On December 16, 2004, Ang executed a “Deed of
Assignment of Business Rights” (Deed) transferring all of
her business rights over the EIDC to Figuera for One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
In addition to the assignment of rights, the parties also
agreed that Ang shall pay the bills for electricity,
telephone, office rentals, and the employees’ salaries up to

the month of December 2004.5
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-33.

2 Substituted by Enhance Visa Services, Inc., represented by Ma. Eden
R. Dumont.
3 Rollo, pp. 38-48. Penned by CA Executive Justice Pampio A.
Abarintos and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and
Melchor Q. C. Sadang.
4 Id., at pp. 66-67.
5 Deed of Assignment of Business Rights, par. 3:
“3. X X X It is the essence therefore, that upon execution of this
document, the ASSIGNOR is freed by the ASSIGNEE, from all obligations
whatsoever in relation to [EIDC], any of its clientele, the government, and
all

179
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 179

Figuera vs. Ang
Without Ang’s consent, Figuera paid all the utility bills

amounting to P107,903.21 as of December 2004. On
January 17, 2005, Figuera tendered only the amount of
P42,096.79 to Ang, after deducting the amount paid for the
utility bills from the P150,000.00 consideration of the Deed.
Ang refused to accept Figuera’s payment. Figuera
mailed the Formal Tender of Payment and gave Ang five
(5) days to accept the amount. Despite the lapse of the 5-
day period, however, Ang still refused to accept the
payment.
Thus, Figuera filed a complaint for specific
performance before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
9 of Cebu City against Ang. Figuera consigned the amount
of P42,096.79 to the RTC.
In her answer, Ang maintained that the amount due
pursuant to the Deed is P150,000.00 and not just
P42,096.79. She argued that she cannot be compelled to
accept the amount because it is not what was agreed upon.
On May 19, 2005, Figuera conveyed all her rights,
assets, interests, liabilities, and causes of action over EIDC
in favor of the Enhance Visa Services, Inc. (EVSI) through
a “Deed of Assignment Coupled with Interest.” Thus, on
June 14, 2005, EVSI substituted Figuera, on motion, as

plaintiff.
The RTC’s Ruling

The RTC ruled in Ang’s favor in its decision dated
December 28, 2007.
The RTC held that the unambiguous language of the
Deed mandates Ang, as the Assignor, to pay the December
2004
_______________
other parties. However, the ASSIGNOR shall pay for the

following bills up to the month of December, 2004: electricity,
telephone, office rentals and salaries for the employees.”

180

Figuera vs. Ang
utility bills. Figuera, however, paid the utility bills

without Ang’s consent.
The RTC explained that for the tender of payment and
consignation to be valid, Figuera must tender the full
amount of P150,000.00 rather than just P42,096.79. Ang is
not obliged to accept an amount less than what is agreed
upon in the Deed.
Figuera appealed the RTC decision to the CA and
argued that by operation of law, legal subrogation and
compensation had taken place. Consequently, Figuera’s
obligation to the extent of the amount of P107,903.21 is
extinguished.
The CA’s Ruling

In its June 29, 2012 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling.
The CA held that there is nothing in the Deed that
grants Figuera the option to pay the utility bills and to
deduct the payment from the agreed consideration in the
Deed; thus, the amount of P150,000.00 remains as the due
consideration from Figuera. Moreover, Figuera failed to
prove that Ang consented to the payment of the bills.
The CA added that Figuera’s payment of P42,096.79

cannot be considered as a valid tender of payment or a
valid consignation because it is insufficient to cover the
consideration due to Ang.
As for the other issues and arguments which Figuera
failed to raise before the RTC, the CA held that these
issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Figuera sought reconsideration of the CA’s decision
which the CA denied for lack of merit in its September 28,
2012 resolution.

181
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 181

Figuera vs. Ang
The Parties’ Arguments

In the present petition for review, Figuera challenges
the CA’s decision and resolution affirming the RTC ruling.
Figuera argues that the CA committed errors of law
based on the following grounds: First, Figuera was eager to
pay the utility bills being the EIDC’s new owner.
Second, Figuera had been subrogated to the rights of
Ang’s creditor’s (i.e., the Telephone Company, electric
company, office space lessor, and company employees) upon
payment of the utility bills even if the payment was made
without Ang’s knowledge. Consequently, Ang became
Figuera’s debtor.
Third, Figuera and Ang became debtors and creditors of
one another for a sum of money that is liquidated, due,
demandable, and without controversy.
Fourth, Figuera and Ang’s obligations amounting to
P107,903.21 were compensated against each other by
operation of law.
Fifth, Figuera’s tender of the amount of P42,096.79 to
Ang is a valid tender of payment.
Sixth, Figuera validly consigned the amount of
P42,096.79.
Finally, Figuera presented the foregoing issues before
the RTC and did not raise them for the first time on appeal.
In her comment,6 Ang argued that: first, a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only allows
questions of law. Figuera’s contention that legal
subrogation and compensation took place requires proof
that should have been established during the trial.
Second, Figuera admitted that the RTC was correct in

ruling that there was nothing in the Deed that grants her
the option to pay the utilities nor allows any deduction
from the agreed consideration upon her payment of the
utility bills.
_______________
6 Rollo, pp. 79-89.

182

Figuera vs. Ang
Third, legal subrogation cannot take place because the

situation of the parties under the Deed is not among the
instances provided by law for subrogation to take place.
Fourth and last, Figuera should not be allowed to raise
issues regarding legal subrogation and compensation
because these were raised for the first time on appeal.

The Issue

The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or
not there was a valid tender of payment and consignation.

Our Ruling

We grant the petition and reverse the CA’s ruling.
The questions raised in this

petition are one of law which
the Court can properly review.

It is a settled rule that the Court cannot review
questions of fact on a petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. A question of fact exists when the truth
or falsity of the parties’ factual allegations is in dispute. A
question of law, on the other hand, exists when the
application of the law on the stated facts is in controversy.7
The parties’ description of the questions raised does not
determine whether these questions are of fact or of law.
The true test is whether the appellate court can resolve the
issue without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in
which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a

question of fact.8
_______________
7 Bognot v. RRI Lending Corporation, G.R. No. 180144, September 24,

2014, 736 SCRA 357.
8 Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013,
699 SCRA 157.

183
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 183

Figuera vs. Ang
Contrary to Ang’s allegation, the question involved in

the present case is a question of law which the Court can
properly pass upon. There is no dispute regarding the
existence of the Deed and its consideration, and the
provision that mandates Ang to pay the EIDC’s bills until
December 2004. Ang also did not refute Figuera’s payment
amounting to P107,903.21 to Ang’s creditors and Figuera’s
tender of payment to Ang amounting to P42,096.79.
The CA can assess Figuera’s contention that legal
subrogation and compensation had taken place even
without requiring Figuera to present further evidence. The
issue on the validity, of Figuera’s tender of payment and
consignation can be resolved through the application of the
relevant laws.
The Court may properly address

the questions raised even though
they are raised for the first time
on appeal.

Ang contends that the CA correctly dismissed Figuera’s
argument that her debt amounting to P107,903.21 is
extinguished through legal subrogation and compensation.
Figuera’s argument, Ang insists, was not raised before the
trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
We disagree. The Court grants to consider and resolve
the issues on the application of legal subrogation and
compensation, even though it was raised for the first time
on appeal.
As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments

not brought before the trial court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal and will not be considered by this
Court; otherwise, a denial of the respondent’s right to due
process will result.9
_______________
9 Tolosa v. National Labor Relations Commission, 449 Phil. 271; 401

SCRA 291 (2003).

184

Figuera vs. Ang
In the interest of justice, however, the Court may

consider and resolve issues not raised before the trial court
if it is necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights
and obligations of the parties, and it falls within the issues
found by the parties.10
Thus, an appellate court is clothed with authority to
review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the
appeal in the following instances:
(a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are
evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of
law;
(c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just
decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the
interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal
but raised in the trial court and are matters of record
having some bearing on the issue submitted which the
parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely
related to an error assigned; and
(f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon
which the determination of a question properly assigned, is
dependent.11
_______________
10 Trinidad v. Acapulco, G.R. No. 147477, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA
179.
11 Mendoza v. Bautista, G.R. No. 143666, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA
691. See also Sec. 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court.

185
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 185

Figuera vs. Ang
Figuera’s position falls under two of these exceptions,

namely — that the determination of the question
newly raised is necessary in arriving at a just
decision and complete resolution of the case, and
that the resolution of a question properly assigned is
dependent on those which were not assigned as
errors on appeal.
For the CA to rule on whether there was a valid tender
of payment and consignation, it must first determine the
amount that Figuera should have tendered. To do so, the
appellate court must examine whether the principles of
legal subrogation and compensation, as Figuera argued,
should be applied.
To recall, Figuera claims that the consideration for the
assignment worth P150,000.00 should be reduced by
P107,903.21, representing the amount that she paid for the
EIDC’s utility bills. Figuera argues that her payment of the
utility bills subrogated her to the rights of Ang’s creditors
against Ang.
Article 1291 of the New Civil Code12 provides that the
subrogation of a third person to the rights of the creditor is
one of the means to modify obligations. Subrogation,
sometimes referred to as substitution, is “an arm of equity
that may guide or even force one to pay a debt for which an
obligation was incurred but which was in whole or in part
paid by another.”13 It transfers to the person subrogated
the credit, with all the rights appertaining thereto, either
against the debtor or against third persons.14
_______________
12 Article 1291. Obligations may be modified by: (1) Changing their

object or principal conditions; (2) Substituting the person of the debtor;
and (3) Subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.
13 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Jamila & Company, Inc.,

No. L-27427, April 7, 1976, 70 SCRA 323, citing Fireman’s Fund
Indemnity Co. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 209 Pac. 2d 55.
14 Art. 1303, NCC.

186

Figuera vs. Ang
Subrogation of a third person in the rights of a creditor

may either be legal or conventional.15 There is legal
subrogation when: (a) a creditor pays another preferred
creditor, even without the debtor’s knowledge; (b) a third
person who is not interested in the obligation pays with the
express or tacit approval of the debtor; and (c) a person
interested in the fulfilment of the obligation pays, even
without the knowledge of the debtor.16
In the present case, Figuera based her claim on the third
type of subrogation. She claims that as the EIDC’s new
owner, she is interested in fulfilling Ang’s obligation to pay
the utility bills. Since the payment of the bills was long
overdue prior to the assignment of business rights to
Figuera, the failure to settle the bills would eventually
result in “the disconnection of the electricity and telephone
services, ejectment from the office premises, and
resignation by some, if not all, of the company’s employees
with the possibility of subsequent labor claims for sums of
money.”17 These utilities are obviously necessary for
the continuation of Figuera’s business transactions.
A person interested in the fulfilment of the obligation is
one who stands to be benefited or injured in the
enforcement of the obligation. The Court agrees with
Figuera that it became absolutely necessary for her to
pay the bills since Ang did not do so when the
obligation became due.
We note that both the RTC and the CA held that
Figuera failed to prove that Ang had consented to the
payment of the EIDC bills; therefore, Figuera cannot
deduct the amount she paid for the utility bills from the
P150,000.00 consideration.
A clear reading, however, of Article 1302 of the New
Civil Code would lead to a different conclusion. The
consent or approval of the debtor is required only if
a third per-
_______________
15 Art. 1300, id.

16 Art. 1302, id.
17 Rollo, p. 14.

187
VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 187

Figuera vs. Ang
son who is not interested in the fulfilment of the

obligation pays such. On the other hand, no such
requirement exists in cases of payment by a creditor
to another creditor who is preferred, and by a
person interested in the fulfilment of the
obligation. Notably, Article 1302(1) and (3) does not
require the debtor’s knowledge.
Therefore, legal subrogation took place despite the
absence of Ang’s consent to Figuera’s payment of the EIDC
bills. Figuera is now deemed as Ang’s creditor by operation
of law.
On Figuera’s argument that legal compensation took
place, and in effect, extinguished her obligation to Ang to
the extent of the amount Figuera paid for the EIDC bills,
Article 1278 of the New Civil Code is instructive.
Article 1278 of the New Civil Code states that there is
compensation when two persons, in their own right, are
creditors and debtors of one another. These elements must
concur for legal compensation to apply: (1) each one of the
debtors is bound principally, and that the debtor is at the
same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) both debts
consist of a sum of money, or if the things due be
consumable, they be of the same kind and also of the same
quality if the latter has been stated; (3) both debts are due;
(4) both debts are liquidated and demandable; and (5) there
be no retention or controversy over both debts commenced
by third persons and communicated in due time to the
debtor.18 When all these elements are present,
compensation takes effect by operation of law and
extinguishes both debts to the corresponding amount, even
though both parties are without knowledge of the
compensation.19 It operates even against the will of the
interested parties and even without their consent.20
_______________
18 Art. 1279, NCC.

19 Art. 1290, id.
20 BPI v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116792, March 29, 1996, 255
SCRA 571.

188

Figuera vs. Ang
We find that all the elements of legal

compensation are present in this case.
First, in the assignment of business rights, Figuera
stood as Ang’s debtor for the consideration amounting to
P150,000.00. Figuera, on the other hand, became Ang’s
creditor for the amount of P107,903.21 through Figuera’s
subrogation to the rights of Ang’s creditors against the
latter.
Second, both debts consist of a sum of money, which are
both due, liquidated, and demandable.
Finally, neither party alleged that there was any claim
raised by third persons against said obligation.
In effect, even without the knowledge and consent
of Ang or Figuera, their obligation as to the amount
of P107,903.21 had already been extinguished.
Consequently, Figuera owes Ang the remaining due
amount of P42,096.79.
While the RTC and the CA correctly held that there was
nothing in the Deed that grants Figuera an option to pay
the utility bills and to deduct the amount from the
consideration, we stress that although not expressly
written, laws are deemed incorporated in every contract
entered within our territories. Thus, the Court reads into
the Deed the provisions of law on subrogation and
compensation.
With the determination of the amount of Figuera’s
obligation to Ang, the question left to be resolved is: Was
there a valid tender of payment and consignation?
Tender of payment is the act of offering to the creditor
what is due him, together with the demand for the creditor
to accept it. To be valid, the tender of payment must be a
“fusion of intent, ability, and capability to make good such
offer, which must be absolute and must cover the amount

due.”21
_______________
21 Far Eastern Bank & Trust Company v. Diaz Realty, Inc., G.R. No.
138588, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 659.

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 189

Figuera vs. Ang
As earlier discussed, the remaining amount due in

Figuera’s obligation is P42,096.79. Thus, Figuera’s
tender of the remaining amount to Ang is valid and
Ang offered no valid justification in refusing to
accept the tender of payment. Due to the creditor’s
refusal, without any just cause, to the valid tender of
payment, the debtor is released from her obligation
by the consignation of the thing or sum due.22
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for
review on certiorari. The decision dated June 29, 2012 and
resolution dated September 28, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 02480 are
hereby REVERSED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.
Del Castillo, J., On Leave.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed.
Notes.—The right of subrogation is not dependent upon,

nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon
written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon
payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. (Loadstar
Shipping Company, Incorporated vs. Malayan Insurance
Company, Incorporated, 742 SCRA 627 [2014])
Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the
place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so
that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the
other in relation to a debt or claim, including its remedies
or securities. (Id.)

——o0o——
22 Art. 1256, NCC.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Figuera Vs Ang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figuera Vs Ang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figuera Vs Ang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 795

G.R. No. 204264. June 29, 2016.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for

clothed with authority to review rulings even if they are

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of

debtor’s knowledge; (b) a third person who is not interested in the

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 177

On the other hand, no such requirement exists in cases

though both parties are without knowledge of the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gica, Del Socorro, Espinoza, Villarmia, Fernandez &

telephone, office rentals, and the employees’ salaries up to

1 Rollo, pp. 3-33.

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 179

Without Ang’s consent, Figuera paid all the utility bills

June 14, 2005, EVSI substituted Figuera, on motion, as

The RTC’s Ruling

other parties. However, the ASSIGNOR shall pay for the

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

utility bills. Figuera, however, paid the utility bills

The CA’s Ruling

The CA added that Figuera’s payment of P42,096.79

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 181

The Parties’ Arguments

Second, Figuera admitted that the RTC was correct in

6 Rollo, pp. 79-89.

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Third, legal subrogation cannot take place because the

The questions raised in this

which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a

7 Bognot v. RRI Lending Corporation, G.R. No. 180144, September 24,

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 183

Contrary to Ang’s allegation, the question involved in

The Court may properly address

As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments

9 Tolosa v. National Labor Relations Commission, 449 Phil. 271; 401

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the interest of justice, however, the Court may

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 185

Figuera’s position falls under two of these exceptions,

12 Article 1291. Obligations may be modified by: (1) Changing their

13 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Jamila & Company, Inc.,

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Subrogation of a third person in the rights of a creditor

15 Art. 1300, id.

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 187

son who is not interested in the fulfilment of the

18 Art. 1279, NCC.

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

We find that all the elements of legal

offer, which must be absolute and must cover the amount

VOL. 795, JUNE 29, 2016 189

As earlier discussed, the remaining amount due in

Carpio (Chairperson), Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed.

Notes.—The right of subrogation is not dependent upon,

22 Art. 1256, NCC.