FACTS:

RAMON N. OROZCO, plaintiff-appellee, initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to recover damages from JUAN XAVIER, defendant-appellant, for a breach of two separate contracts. Xavier had agreed to furnish Aniceto Lacson and Eulalio Lacson (from whom Orozco claimed to derive his rights through a series of assignments) 250 men each to work on their sugar estates in Negros from November 1902 to May 1903.

Xavier failed to fulfill either of these contracts. While the Lacsons did not pay the second installment for the laborers, Xavier himself testified that he did not demand it because he knew he could not furnish the laborers.

Orozco alleged that Aniceto Lacson and Eulalio Lacson assigned their rights to Manuel Avanceña and Claro Jetorian, respectively, and that Avanceña and Jetorian subsequently assigned their rights to him (Orozco). The assignments from the Lacsons to Avanceña and Jetorian were proven.

However, Orozco failed to present direct proof of the assignments from Avanceña and Jetorian to himself. Instead, he presented a settlement agreement dated May 11, 1903, between Avanceña, Jetorian, and Xavier, wherein Xavier promised to pay certain sums for the claims. At the foot of this document were endorsements dated February 1, 1905, in favor of Orozco, signed by M. Avanceña and Natividad Conlu (identified as the widow of Claro Jetorian). No evidence was offered to prove the authenticity of these signatures, nor was it shown how Natividad Conlu acquired the rights of Claro Jetorian.

The trial court found that Xavier had breached the contracts and ordered him to pay 10,000 pesos in damages to Orozco. Xavier appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:

Did the plaintiff, RAMON N. OROZCO, sufficiently prove his ownership of the cause of action by demonstrating valid assignments of rights from Manuel Avanceña and Claro Jetorian (or his widow) to himself?

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, holding that RAMON N. OROZCO failed to prove his ownership of the cause of action.

While the assignments from the original contracting parties (Aniceto Lacson and Eulalio Lacson) to Manuel Avanceña and Claro Jetorian were established, the subsequent assignments from Avanceña and Jetorian (or his widow) to Orozco were not sufficiently proven.

Specifically, the Court found that:
1. There was no evidence to prove the signatures of M. Avanceña or Natividad Conlu (widow of Jetorian) on the endorsements made at the foot of the settlement agreement.
2. There was no showing of how Natividad Conlu, as the widow of Claro Jetorian, acquired his rights under the contract.
3. No evidence was offered to show any direct assignment of the original contracts between Avanceña and Jetorian and Orozco.

Thus, the plaintiff, having failed to establish his ownership of the cause of action, could not sustain the judgment in his favor. The Court ordered the judgment reversed and a new trial.

G.R. No. 3763 , September 18, 1908, RAMON N. OROZCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN XAVIER, defendant-appellant.