Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Salas vs. CA: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    This case involves a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation. The note was later endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments due to a discrepancy in the vehicle's identification numbers. The Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument as it was in writing, for a certain amount, and payable to order. As Filinvest was a holder in due course that acquired the note in good faith, Salas could not use defenses against the original seller. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Salas must pay Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Salas vs. CA: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    4 views1 page
    This case involves a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation. The note was later endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments due to a discrepancy in the vehicle's identification numbers. The Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument as it was in writing, for a certain amount, and payable to order. As Filinvest was a holder in due course that acquired the note in good faith, Salas could not use defenses against the original seller. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Salas must pay Filinvest.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    N-08-01 Salas v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation. The note was later endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments due to a discrepancy in the vehicle's identification numbers. The Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument as it was in writing, for a certain amount, and payable to order. As Filinvest was a holder in due course that acquired the note in good faith, Salas could not use defenses against the original seller. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Salas must pay Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views1 page

    Salas vs. CA: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    This case involves a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation. The note was later endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments due to a discrepancy in the vehicle's identification numbers. The Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument as it was in writing, for a certain amount, and payable to order. As Filinvest was a holder in due course that acquired the note in good faith, Salas could not use defenses against the original seller. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Salas must pay Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Salas vs.

    CA ISSUE
    G.R. No. 76788| 181 SCRA 296 | 01 22 1990 | Fernan, C.J. 1. W/N the Promissory Note is a Negotiable Instrument which will
    Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals completely bar all defenses of Salas against VMS. Yes
    Petitioner: Juanita Salas
    Respondent: Court of Appeals and Filinvest Finance & Leasing Company RULING & RATIO
    Negotiable Instruments Law Section 8: When Payable To Order • The Promissory Note was in writing and signed by Salas. It
    contained an unconditional promise to pay an amount certain in
    DOCTRINE money. It was payable at a fixed or determinable future time since it
    • Payable to P or Order (Words of Negotiability) + Holder In Due Course = was payable by installments. It was payable to VMS Corp or order,
    Free from all defenses available against the original payee which means it contained the so-called “words of negotiability”. The
    promissory note issued by Salas was a Negotiable Instrument.
    Civil Code Provision • It was complete and regular on its face when Respondent, who was
    Section 8: WHEN PAYABLE TO ORDER in good faith, became a holder thereof before it was overdue.
    The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the Respondent was in good faith because it had no notice of any
    infirmity or defect in the title of VMS. This makes Respondent a
    order of a specified person or to him or his order. It may be drawn
    Holder In Due Course. Hence, Salas cannot raise the defense of
    payable to the order of: nullity of the sale of the car against Respondent. – See Sec 57 - 58
    (a) A payee who is not maker, drawer, or drawee; or
    (b) The drawer or maker; or Notes:
    (c) The drawee; or Section 57: RIGHTS OF HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
    (d) Two or more payees jointly; or A holder in due course holds the instrument free from any defect of title of
    (e) One or some of several payees; or prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among
    (f) The holder of an office for the time being. themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount
    thereof against all parties liable thereon.
    FACTS
    • Juanita Salas (Petitioner) bought a motor vehicle from Violago Motor Section 58: WHEN SUBJECT TO ORIGINAL DEFENSE
    Sales Corporation (VMS) for P58,138.20 as evidenced by a Promissory In the hands of any holder other than a holder in due course, a negotiable
    Note. This note was subsequently endorsed to FIlinvest Finance & instrument is subject to the same defenses as if it were non-negotiable. But a
    Leasing Corporation (Respondent) which financed the purchase. holder who derives his title through a holder in due course, and who is not
    • Petitioner defaulted in her installments beginning May 21, 1980 due to a himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting the instrument, has all the
    discrepancy in the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle delivered rights of such former holder in respect of all parties prior to the latter.
    and those indicated in the Sales Invoice, Certificate of Registration and
    Deed of Chattel Mortgage. This was discovered when the vehicle figured Section 59: WHO IS DEEMED HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
    in an accident on May 9, 1980. Every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it
    • Respondent filed a civil case for a sum of money against Petitioner is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was
    before the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga which ordered Petitioner to defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under
    pay Defendant P28,414.40 with 14% interest rate from Oct 2, 1980 until whom he claims acquired the title as holder in due course. But the last-
    sum is fully paid. mentioned rule does not apply in favor of a party who became bound on the
    instrument prior to the acquisition of such defective title.
    • Petitioner appealed the decision imputing bad faith to VMS for delivering
    a different vehicle.
    • CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
    • Hence, Petitioner filed this present petition in the Supreme Court.

    Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-08-01 Salas v CA.pdf


    AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 1 of 1

    You might also like