SSS V ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC.

FACTS:
AG&P informed SSS of its delinquencies and proposed to pay it, but requested for the condonation of all
penalties. SSS suggested 2 options to AG&P: payment by installment or through dacion en pago. AG&P
choose dacion en pago.

SSS informed AG&P of its decision to include other companies with outstanding obligation within the
umbrella of DMCI. This, Semirara was included in the proposed settlement through dacion en pago.
They offered a lot in Batangas as form of payment.

To effect the transfer, a Deed of Assignment has to be executed between the parties and SSS was not
able to draft one so AG&P prepared one. More than a year after the approval of AG&Ps proposal, SSS
sent a revised copy but the obligation of AG&P ballooned allegedly because of the additional interest
and penalty charges assessed on AG&Ps outstanding balance. AG&P didnt want to pay the additional
charges but SSS wont accept the payment by dacion en pago unless the additional charges are included.

The CA held that the subject of the complaint is the enforcement of the dacion en pago, thus the action
then is one for specific performance which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. SSS insists that it is the
SSSs Commission who has jurisdiction

ISSUE:
Which body has jurisdiction to entertain a controversy arising from the non-implementation of a dacion
en pago?

HELD: