Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Filriters transferred the CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Filriters transferred the CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment.
Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Filriters transferred the CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Filriters transferred the CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. NO.
D891. Under a deed of assignment dated November 27, 1971, Filriters transferred CBCI FREEDOM OF NEGOTIABILITY; NOT PRESENT IN No. D891 to Philippine Underwriters Finance CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS. — The Corporation (Philfinance). Subsequently, language of negotiability which characterize a Philfinance transferred CBCI No. D891, which negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its was still registered in the name of Filriters, to freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. appellant Traders Royal Bank (TRB). The transfer Hence, freedom of negotiability is the touchstone was made under a repurchase agreement dated relating to the protection of holders in due February 4, 1981, granting Philfinance the right to course, and the freedom of negotiability is the repurchase the instrument on or before April 27, foundation for the protection which the law 1981. When Philfinance failed to buy back the throws around a holder in due course (11 Am. note on maturity date, it executed a deed of Jur. 2d, 32). This freedom in negotiability is assignment, dated April 27, 1981, conveying to totally absent in a certificate of indebtedness as appellant TRB all its rights and title to CBCI No. it merely acknowledges to pay a sum of money D891. to a specified person or entity for a period of time. Armed with the deed of assignment, TRB then sought the transfer and registration of CBCI No. D891 in its name before the Security and Servicing Department of the Central Bank (CB). Central Bank, however, refused to effect the transfer and registration in view of an adverse claim filed by defendant Filriters. Petitioner argued that the subject CBCI was a negotiable instrument, and having acquired the said certificate from Philfinance as a holder in due course, its possession of the same is thus free from any defect of title of prior parties and from any defense available to prior parties among themselves, and it may thus, enforce payment of NO. the presumption under the Rules of court the instrument for the full amount thereof against that a NI was given for a sufficient all parties liable thereon. consideration, thus a HOLDER in due course will not apply to Salazar. The term given is not CB Certificate of Bank indebtedness a negotiable merely a transfer of physical possession of the instrument? instrument. The phrase GIVEN or ENDORSED in the contest of a negotiable instrument refers to the manner in wc such instrument maybe negotiated . NI are negotiated by one person to 2. BPI vs CA SALAZAR, TEMPLONUEVAO another in such a manner as to constitute the On the claim of Templonuevo that 3 checks transferee the HOLDER thereof. If payable to payable to him were deposited with BPI to bearer, by delivery, if payable to ORDER by Salazar’s account without his knowledge and INDORSEMENT completed by The present case endorsement. BPI debited salazars bank account involves checks payable to order. Not being a and paid Templonuevo with managers check. payee or indorsee of the checks, private respondent Salazar could not be a holder does a collecting bank, over the objections of its thereof delivery. depositor, have the authority to withdraw The weight of authority is that the mere unilaterally from such depositor's account the possession of a negotiable instrument does not amount it had previously paid upon certain in itself conclusively establish either the right of the possessor to receive payment, or of the unendorsed order instruments deposited by the right of one who has made payment to be depositor to another account that she later discharged from liability. Thus, something more closed? than mere possession by persons who are not Is Salazar a holder in due course? payees or indorsers of the instrument is necessary to authorize payment to them in the absence of any other facts from which the authority to receive payment may be inferred. (In State Investment House v. IAC, 20 the Court enumerated the effects of crossing a check, thus: (1) that the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank; (2) that the check may be negotiated only once — to one who has an account with a bank; and (3) that the act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that such holder must inquire if the check has been received 3. NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR. ET AL, VS CA et al pursuant to that purpose. ) Execution of judgment against Tibajia couple, instead of satisfying the judgment debt from the amount garnished and deposited with the clerk of court, the couple paid cash and cashier’s check. Is a check legal tender? CIVIL LAW; EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS; PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE; LEGAL TENDER; CASHIER'S CHECK IS NOT LEGAL TENDER. — In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Roman Catholic Bishop of 4, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC., Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, this Court held that — "A check, whether a and ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY AND manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,1990 tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor." The ruling in these two (2) cases merely applies the statutory provisions which lay down the rule that a check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager's, cashier's or personal check.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT VALIDLY CONSTITUTED BY
PAYMENT OF A CERTIFIED PERSONAL CHECK. — With regard to the third issue, granting arguendo that we would rule 5. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, affirmatively on the two preceding issues, the INC., petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO V. SENERIS, case of the private respondent still can not RICARDO A. TONG and EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF succeed in view of the fact that the latter used a HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID, 1980 certified personal check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and therefore, can Before the auction sale set by the Clerk of Court as Ex- not constitute valid tender of payment. The first Officio sheriff, pursuant to a writ of execution paragraph of Art. 1249 of the Civil Code provides issued by respondent Judge at the instance of that "the payment of debts in money shall be private respondent, upon failure of petitioner to made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not pay the judgment obligation in the amount of possible to deliver such currency, then in the P63,130.00, the latter deposited with the Clerk of currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. Court the amount of P50,000.00 in cashier's The Court en banc in the recent case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals,