Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Vicente R. de Ocampo V. Gatchalian (1961)
Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Vicente R. de Ocampo V. Gatchalian (1961)
Gatchalian
(1961)
G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968
Next Day: Manual did not appear so Anita issued a stop payment order
FACTS:
Sept 8 1953 evening: Anita C. Gatchalian was looking for a car for the use of
her husband and the family and Manuel Gonzales who was accompanied by
Emil Fajardois (personally known to Anita) offered her a car
Manuel Gonzales represented to defendant Anita that he was duly
authorized by Ocampo Clinic, the owner of the car, to look for a buyer and
negotiate for and accomplish the sale, but which facts were not known to
Ocampo
Anita filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, a complaint for estafa
against Manuel
Appeal Manuel contends that:
the check is not a negotiable instrument, under the facts and circumstances
stated in the stipulation of facts - no delivery (Section 16, Negotiable
Instruments Law) because only for safekeeping (conditional delivery)
Ocampo is not a holder in due course
September 9 1953
Anita requested Manuel to bring the car the day following together with
the certificate of registration of the car so that her husband would be able
to see same
Manuel Gonzales told her that unless there is a showing that the party
interested in the purchase is ready he cannot bring the certificate of
registration
Anita gave him a check which will be shown to the owner as evidence
of buyer's GF in the intention to purchase, it being for safekeeping only of
Manuel and to be returned
For the hospitalization of the wife of Manuel, he paid the check to Ocampo
clinic
P441.75 - payment of said fees and expenses
could have inquired why a person would use the check of another to pay his
own debt, Gatchalian being personally acquainted with V. R. de Ocampo
ISSUES:
W/N Ocampo is a holder in due course - NO
W/N prima facie holder in due course applies - NO
HELD:
NO
Sec. 191
In order to show that the defendant had 'knowledge of such facts that his
action in taking the instrument amounted to BF it is not necessary to prove
that the defendant knew the exact fraud
holder in due course - holder who has taken the instrument under the ff
conditions:
It is sufficient that the buyer of a note had notice or knowledge that the
note was in some way tainted with fraud
2. NO
Sec. 59
every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course
That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice
that it had been previously dishonored, it such was the fact.
That he took it in good faith and for value.
That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity
in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it
a possessor of the instrument is prima facie a holder in due course does not
apply because there was a defect in the title of the holder (Manuel
Gonzales) because the instrument is not payable to him or to bearer.
suspicious circumstance
VICENTE R. DE OCAMPO & CO. v. ANITA GATCHALIAN. G.R. No. L-15126.
November 30, 1961.
FACTS:
circumstances
the amount of the check did not correspond exactly with the obligation
of Matilde Gonzales to Dr. V. R. de Ocampo
check had two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner, which practice
means that the check could only be deposited but may not be converted
into cash
It was payee's duty to ascertain from the holder Manuel what the nature of
his title to the check was or the nature of his possession. - failure: guilty of
gross neglect and legal absence of GF
FACTS:
Moulic issued checks as security to Victoriano, for pieces of jewelry to be
sold on commission. Moulic failed to sell the pieces of jewelry, so sh
e returned them to Victoriano. The checks however could not be recovered
by Moulic as these have been discounted already in favor of petitione
r. Consequently, before the maturity dates, Moulic withdrew her funds
from her account. Thereafter, petitioner presented the checks for payment
but these were dishonored. This prompted the petitioner to initiate an
action
against Moulic.
HELD:
A prima facie presumption exists that a holder of a negotiable instrument is
a holder in due course. The burden of proving that State is not a holder in
due course is upon Moulic. In this regard, she failed to do so.
The evidence shows that the dated checks were complete and regular;
petitioner bought the checks from Victoriano before their due dates; it took
the checks in good faith and for value; and it was never informed nor made
aware that these checks were merely issued to payee as security.
Consequently, State is a holder in due course. Moulic cannot set up t
he defense that there was failure or want of consideration. It can only
invoke the defense if State was a privy to the purpose for which they were
issued and therefore is not a holder in due course.
Furthermore, the mere fact that the checks were issued as security is not
sufficient ground to discharge the instrument as against a holder in du
e course.
And also, Moulic was responsible for the dishonor of her checks. She
withdrew her funds from her account and could not have expected he
r checks to be honored by then.
State Investment House Inc. vs. CA
State Investment House Inc. vs. CA
GR No. 101163 January 11, 1993
Bellosillo, J.:
Facts:
Nora Moulic issued to Corazon Victoriano, as security for pieces of jewellery
to be sold on commission, two postdated checks in the amount of fifty
thousand each. Thereafter, Victoriano negotiated the checks to State
Investment House, Inc. When Moulic failed to sell the jewellry, she returned
it to Victoriano before the maturity of the checks. However, the checks
cannot be retrieved as they have been negotiated. Before the maturity date
Moulic withdrew her funds from the bank contesting that she incurred no
obligation on the checks because the jewellery was never sold and the
checks are negotiated without her knowledge and consent. Upon
presentment of for payment, the checks were dishonoured for insufficiency
of funds.
Issues:
1. Whether or not State Investment House inc. was a holder of the check in
due course
2. Whether or not Moulic can set up against the petitioner the defense that
there was failure or absence of consideration
Held:
Yes, Section 52 of the NIL provides what constitutes a holder in due course.
The evidence shows that: on the faces of the post dated checks were
complete and regular; that State Investment House Inc. bought the checks
from Victoriano before the due dates; that it was taken in good faith and for
value; and there was no knowledge with regard that the checks were issued
as security and not for value. A prima facie presumption exists that a holder
of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Moulic failed to prove
the contrary.
No, Moulic can only invoke this defense against the petitioner if it was a
privy to the purpose for which they were issued and therefore is not a
holder in due course.
meet Chandiramani to turn over the checks and the dollar draft, and the
latter would in turn deliver to the former Phil.
Cely Yang vs. Court of Appeals, et, al. - GR No. 138074 Case Digest
Facts:
FACTS:
December 22, 1987 1 p.m.: Yang gave the cashiers checks and
dollar drafts to her business associate, Albert Liong, to be
delivered to Chandiramani by Liongs messenger, Danilo
Ranigo
Ranigo was to meet Chandiramani at 2 p.m. at Philippine Trust Bank,
Ayala Avenue, Makati where he would turn over Yangs cashiers
checks and dollar draft to Chandiramani who, in turn, would deliver to
December 22, 1987 4 p.m.: Ranigo reported the alleged loss of the
checks and the dollar draft to Liong. Liong, in turn, informed Yang,
HELD:
payment
Reynandas, who held FCDU Account No. 124 with the United
the checks and only accepted the same after being assured
that there was nothing wrong with said checks
David did not close his eyes deliberately to the nature or the