The First Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal on the merits in Docket No. 20,827-2025, ruling of May 18, 2026. The thesis: in an ordinary collection lawsuit, the presumption of delivery of goods established by Law No. 19,983 is merely a legal presumption. It is not irrebuttable. In that context, the presumption can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary on the effective delivery of the goods or services, even when the creditor invokes the legal acceptance of the invoice.
If your company assigns invoices to factoring, operates as an assignee of credits, or faces collections based on invoices whose economic reality is in dispute, this ruling defines where the limit of the presumption lies.
What happened
In January 2020, an issuing company issued Invoice No. 67 for $5,247,900 against a debtor company, for sheet-metal work for a shed and a cement slab. In March 2020, it assigned that credit to a factoring company. The debtor company denied from the outset having received the work.
In August 2020, the debtor company became aware of the invoice when it appeared in DICOM, arranged for its cancellation directly with the issuer, and on August 11, 2020 obtained Credit Note No. 12 for the same amount, declaring Invoice No. 67 cancelled.
The factoring company sued for collection in an ordinary lawsuit. The defendant counterclaimed seeking the nullity of the invoice and of its assignment for ideological and material falsity. The Concepción Court of Appeals, in a judgment of May 13, 2025, reversed the first-instance ruling: it rejected the main claim and upheld the counterclaim. The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal on the merits.
The Supreme Court rejected it. Its reasoning: in an ordinary lawsuit —not an enforcement one— Law No. 19,983 applies only insofar as its rules are pertinent to the declaratory procedure. In that framework, the presumption of delivery of article 4 operates as a merely legal presumption, not a conclusive one. Since the effective delivery was not proven, the claim was deemed demonstrated, and a credit note existed that cancelled the invoice, the Court maintained the conclusion that neither the payment obligation nor the validity of the invoice and its assignment was proven. The facts established by the trial judges are immovable in cassation, except for the infringement of rules regulating evidence, which the appellant did not allege.
The rule of the case: in an ordinary lawsuit, if the underlying operation is not proven and the legal presumption of delivery is rebutted, the invoice and its assignment may be left without a sufficient basis to support the collection.
What it may mean for your company
This ruling exposes a risk that the factoring market tends to underestimate.
Those who assign invoices assume that the assignee bears the collection risk. In part, yes. But if the assigned invoice is challengeable by the debtor —because the goods or services were not delivered and the debtor can prove it— the assignee can lose the collection. Depending on how the factoring contract is drafted, discussions could also open between assignor and assignee regarding re-assignment, liability, or guarantees over the existence of the credit. The point is no small matter if your company assigns invoices with recourse.
For the assigned debtor, the ruling confirms a defense that many companies do not exercise. The legal acceptance of the invoice does not necessarily seal the discussion on whether the goods or services were effectively received. In an ordinary lawsuit —which may be the scenario when the invoice has already lost its enforcement merit— you can present evidence to the contrary against the presumption of delivery. The credit note issued by the original assignor, emails, receipt records, or the documented absence of them are admissible evidence.
The gray area is relevant. This ruling operates in the ordinary lawsuit, not in the enforcement one. When the invoice retains its enforcement merit —which requires meeting the applicable legal requirements, including the deadline— the procedural dynamic may be different and the presumption may operate in another way. The Supreme Court expressly limited its analysis to the declaratory procedure. That nuance defines when the ruling applies and when it does not.
There is another angle. The credit note is not just an accounting formality. In this case, the debtor company acted in August 2020 —seven months after the invoice was issued— and obtained the credit note from the issuer itself. That document was a relevant part of the factual basis of the nullity upheld by the Court of Appeals. For companies, the correct practice is to issue and keep credit notes against disputed invoices before the collection escalates to a lawsuit. A credit note issued in a timely manner and kept before the litigation may have greater evidentiary force than evidence generated belatedly.
Do you have assigned invoices in judicial collection or factoring contracts that do not allocate the risk of the credit's non-existence? Schedule a session to review your factoring contracts and your active collections.
What you can do
If you operate in the factoring circuit —as assignor, assignee, or assigned debtor— the active risk is that the presumption of delivery does not function as a shield at the wrong time. Two concrete actions:
- Review your protocol for credit notes and invoice acceptance. Issuing, documenting, and filing the credit note against any questioned invoice is the most direct preventive measure. In parallel, define an invoice-acceptance protocol that verifies the effective delivery of the good or service before accepting —or before letting the legal deadline elapse— so that only invoices backed by a real operation are consolidated. The credit note that exists before the lawsuit may have relevant evidentiary weight.
- Monitor the assigned invoices in dispute that have lost their enforcement merit or are being collected in an ordinary lawsuit. If you have pending collections or are being collected on the basis of assigned invoices in that scenario, assess whether the debtor can prove the absence of delivery. In that case, the presumption of Law No. 19,983 does not operate as an absolute defense for the assignee.
If any of these points raises questions — the credit-note protocol, the acceptance of invoices, or an ongoing collection —, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up your gaps. Schedule here.
If you need to assess the impact of this ruling on your factoring contracts, on active collections, or on your invoice document-management protocol, schedule a meeting with our team
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice.