0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
41 vues1 page
The CA found that the check for P11200 paid by petitioner for the redemption in dispute has been dishonored. The case was remanded to the trial court to receive all relevant and competent evidence to the issue of whether or not there was a proper redemption.
The CA found that the check for P11200 paid by petitioner for the redemption in dispute has been dishonored. The case was remanded to the trial court to receive all relevant and competent evidence to the issue of whether or not there was a proper redemption.
The CA found that the check for P11200 paid by petitioner for the redemption in dispute has been dishonored. The case was remanded to the trial court to receive all relevant and competent evidence to the issue of whether or not there was a proper redemption.
BASED ON AGBAYANIS BOOK AND ATTY. MERCADOS LECTURES
Page 180 of 190
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2D BATCH 2010 FACTS: Petitioner redeemed property, which has been sold upon execution, with a check issued to the buyer Ocang. The CA found that the check for P11200 paid by petitioner for the redemption in dispute has been dishonored, in the face of the other findings in the same decision of the CA indicating that instead of having been dishonored, the said check had only become stale, albeit it being replaced with new ones from time to time.
HELD: Surely, for a check to be dishonored upon presentment, on the one hand, and to be stale for not being presented at all in time, are incompatible developments that naturally have variantly legal consequences. Thus, if indeed the check in question had been dishonored, then there can be no doubt that the petitioners redemption was null and void. On the other hand, if it had only become stale, then it becomes imperative that the circumstances that caused its non-presentment be determined, for if this wasnt due to the fault of petitioner, then it would be unfair to deprive him of the rights he acquired as redemptioner, particularly, if after all, the value of the check has otherwise been received or realized by the party concerned.
The case was remanded to the trial court to receive all relevant and competent evidence to the issue of whether or not Ocang has received in one form or another, the full amount as redemption price of the four parcels of land in dispute as well as to the other facts.
It was found out that Ocang, when he applied for a writ of possession, there was payment of redemption price by Crystal. Thus, there was a proper redemption.
180 MONTINOLA V. PNB 88 SCRA 178
FACTS: Ramos, as a disbursing officer of an army division of the USAFE, made cash advancements w/ the Provincial Treasurer of Lanao. In exchange, the Provl Treasurer of Lanao gave him a P500,000 check. Thereafter, Ramos presented the check to Laya for encashment. Laya in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental as drawer, issued a check to Ramos in the sum of P100000, on the Philippines National Bank as drawee; the P400000 value of the check was paid in military notes.
Ramos was unable to encash the said check for he was captured by the Japanese. But after his release, he sold P30000 of the check to Montinola for P90000 Japanese Military notes, of which only P45000 was paid by the latter. The writing made by Ramos at the back of the check was to the effect that he was assigning only P30000 of the value of the document with an instruction to the bank to pay P30000 to Montinola and to deposit the balance to Ramos's credit. This writing was, however, mysteriously obliterated and in its place, a supposed indorsement appearing on the back of the check was made for the whole amount of the check. At the time of the transfer of this check to Montinola, the check was long overdue by about 2-1/2 years.
Montinola instituted an action against the PNB and the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental to collect the sum of P100,000, the amount of the aforesaid check. There now appears on the face of said check the words in parenthesis "Agent, Phil. National Bank" under the signature of Laya purportedly showing that Laya issued the check as agent of the Philippine National Bank.
HELD: Montinola could not be considered as a holder in due course. Why? For one to be a holder in due course, one should take the instrument before it has become overdue. Remember that in this case, Montinola took the check which has long become overdue. He cannot even be in the slightest be considered as a holder because the NIL defines a holder as being the payee or the indorsee of the negotiable instrument. In this case, he wasn't the payee nor was he the indorsee of the check in issue.
181 PACHECO V. CA 319 SCRA 595
FACTS: Due to dire financial needs of petitioner spouses who were engaged in the construction business, they secured loans from Vicencio. At every loan secured, the lender compelled the spouses to issue an undated check despite the admission of spouses that their bank account has insufficient funds or as on a later date, already closed. Lender assured them that the issuance of the check was only evidence of indebtedness, that it would not be presented to the bank, and it would be for formalities only. On the date wherein there was an unpaid balance to the loans secured by the spouses, the lender had them place a date on two of the later checks issued. Surprised later on, the spouses were charged with estafa as the checks were presented for encashment and was dishonored.