Egargo, Mamerto Jr.

2017

MATERIAL ALTERATION
Questions:

IX.

A.

Alfred issued a check for ₱1,000.00 to Benjamin, his friend, as payment for an
electronic gadget. The check was drawn against Alfred's account with Good Bank.
Benjamin then indorsed the check specially in favor of Cesar. However, Cesar
misplaced the check. Dexter, a dormmate of Cesar, found the check, altered its amount
to ₱91,000.00, and forged Cesar's indorsement by way of a blank indorsement in favor
of Felix, a known jeweler. Felix then caused the deposit of the check in his account with
Solar Bank. As collecting bank, Solar Bank stamped "all previous indorsements
guaranteed" on the check. Seeing such stamp of the collecting bank, Good Bank paid
the amount of ₱91,000.00 on the check.

May Good Bank claim reimbursement from Alfred? Explain your answer.

B.

In 2006, Donald, an American temporarily residing in Cebu City, issued to Rhodora a

check for $50,000.00 drawn against Wells Fargo Bank with offices in San Francisco,
California. Rhodora negotiated the check and delivered it to Yaasmin, a Filipina socialite
who frequently travelled locally and internationally. Because of her frequent travels,
Yaasmin misplaced the check. It was only 11 years later on, in 2017, when she found
the check inside a diary kept in her vault in her Hollywood, California house.

Discuss and explain the rights of Yaasmin on the check.

Suggested Answer:

A) Good Bank may claim reimbursement from Alfred but only for the amount of P1,000.
It cannot recover the Php90, 000 difference because payment made under a materially
altered check is not payment done in accordance with the instructions of the drawer.
When Good Bank did not pay according to the tenor of the instrument, then it has no
right to claim reimbursement from Alfred much less the right to deduct the erroneous
payment it made from Alfred's account (Metrobank v. Cablizo, G.R. No. 69, December
6, 2006, 510 SCRA 259; Areza v. Express Savings Bank, No. 176697, September
10,2014).
Alternative Answer:

No. Good Bank cannot claim reimbursement from Alfred. The general rule is that in
case of forgery of the indorsement of the payee of the check, the drawer cannot debit
the drawer's account and the loss shall be borne by the drawee bank. The depository or
collecting bank is liable to the drawee bank in case of forged endorsement (or
endorsements other than the payee) because it guarantees all prior endorsements.

B) Yasmin can not enforce the check against Donald and Rhodo since more than ten
years had lapsed from check issuance. Action on check is barred by the statute of
limitations

Alternative Answer:

This is a case of stale check, a check not presented within reasonable time from
issuance; hence, Wells Fargo will be justified in refusing to honor the check if presented
for payment. What Yasmin can do is to request Donald, the drawer, to issue a new
check to Yasmin in her capacity as the endorsee of Rhodora, the original payee.
Donald, the, drawer shall be discharged from liability only if the delay caused prejudice
(Art 1249 of the Civil Code).

TRUE or FALSE

DEFENSES
XI.
(c) Forgery is a real defense but may only be raised against a holder not in due course.

Suggested Answer:
False, as real defense it can be raised to any person even a holder in due course.

2005

FORMS AND INTERPRETATION

Questions:
 I.

(1.) What is a negotiable instrument? Give the characteristics of a negotiable

instrument.
(2.) Distinguish a negotiable document from a negotiable instrument.

Suggested Answer:

Negotiable Instrument is a written contract for the payment of money which is intended
as a substitute for money and passes from one person to another as money, in such a
manner as to give a holder in due course the right to hold the instrument free from
defenses available to prior parties. Such instrument must comply with Sec. 1 of the
Negotiable Instrument Law to be considered negotiable.

The characteristics of a negotiable instrument are;

1) Negotiability - That quality or attribute whereby a bill, note or check passes or may
pass from hand to hand, similar to money, so as to give the holder in due course the
right to hold the instrument and collect the sum payable for himself free from defenses.
2) Accumulation of Secondary Contracts as they are transferred from one person to
another.

2) Negotiable Instrument have requisites of Sec. 1 of the NIL, a holder of this instrument
have right of recourse against intermediate parties who are secondarily liable, Holder in
due course may have rights better than transferor, its subject is money and the
Instrument itself is property of value.
On the other hand, negotiable document does not contain requisites of Sec. 1 of NIL, it
has no secondary liability of intermediate parties, transferee merely steps into the shoes
of the transferor, its subject are goods and the instrument is merely evidence of title;
thing of value are the goods mentioned in the document.

KINDS OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

Questions:
(3.) State and explain whether the following are negotiable instruments under the
Negotiable Instruments Law
(i) Postal Money Order;
(ii) A certificate of time deposit which states “This is to certify that bearer has deposited
in this bank the sum of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00) only, repayable to the
depositor 200 days after date.”;
(iii) Letters of credit;
(iv) Warehouse receipts;
(v) Treasury warrants payable from a specific fund.

Suggested Answers:
(i) A postal money order is not a negotiable. It does not contain an unconditional
promise or order to pay required in Section 1 (b) of the NIL. Regulations or
restrictions are imposed on postal money orders which are inconsistent with
the character of negotiable instruments. For instance, the rules and
regulations on postal money orders usually provide for not more than one
indorsement. They also provide that payment may be withheld undera variety
of circumstances. (Philippine Education Company, Inc. v. Mauricio A.
Soriano, et al., G.R. No. L.22405, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 587)

(ii) Certificate of time deposit is negotiable. A certificate of deposit is an

acknowledgment by a bank of the receipt of money and its promise to pay the
money back on the due date, usually with interest. Certificates of deposit
generally pay more interest than regular savings accounts because the
depositor cannot withdraw the money before the due date without penalty.
Their negotiability allows them to be sold, to be used to pay debts or to serve
as security or collateral for a loan or credit agreement.

(iii) Letters of Credit are not negotiable because they do not contain an
unconditional promise or order to pay. A letter of credit is a written instrument
where by a person (for example aa buyer) requests another (bank) and the
latter agress to advance money or give credit to a third person (for example a
seller) and promises to repay the person making the advancement. Payment
or advancement made by the entity (bank) requestesd to pay should be made
only if the third person (seller) presents certain documents. In addition, a
letter of credit under the Code of Commerce is addressed to a specified
person.
 (iv) A warehouse receipt is not a negotiable instrument because it is also a
document of title that represents title to and possession of goods. It is a
document issued by a warehouseman acknowledging receipt of goods that
were deposited by another promising to deliver to whoever is validly holding it
and who can present the same. Like a bill of lading, it may be negotiable
under the Civil Code, but it is not a negotiable instrument under the NIL
because it represents goods rather than promise or order to pay money.

(v) Treasury warrants payable from a specific fund is not negotiable. The promise
to pay is conditional because the sum is payable out of a particular fund, that
is, the appropriation for food administration. (Benjamin Abubakar v. The
Auditor General, G.R. No. L-1405, July 31, 1948, 31 Phil. 359).

LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
Questions:
II.

(1.) Dagul has a business arrangement with Facundo. The latter would lend money to
another, through Dagul, whose name would appear in the promissory note as the
lender. Dagul would then immediately indorse the note to Facundo.
Is Dagul an accommodation party? Explain.
(2.) a) What is a crossed check? A) What are the effects of crossing a check? Explain.
b) Distinguish an irregular indorser from a general indorser
(3.) Brad was in desperate need of money to pay his debt to Pete, a loan shark. Pete
threatened to take Brad’s life if he failed to pay. Brad and Pete went to see Señorita
Isobel, Brad’s rich cousin, and asked her if she could sign a promissory note in his favor
in the amount of P10,000.00 to pay Pete. Fearing that Pete would kill Brad, Señorita
Isobel acceded to the request. She affixed her signature on a piece of paper with the
assurance of Brad that he will just fill it up later. Brad then filled up the blank paper,
making a promissory note for the amount of P100,000.00. He then indorsed and
delivered the same to Pete, who accepted the note as payment of the debt.

What defense or defenses can Señorita Isobel set up against Pete? Explain.

Suggested Answer
1) Dagul is an accommodation party because in the case at bar, he is essentially, a
person who signs as maker without receiving any consideration, signs as an
accommodation party merely for the purpose of lending the credit of his name. And as
an accommodation party he cannot set up lack of consideration against any holder,
even as to one who is not a holder in due course.
2) A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice, crossing a check is done by
writing two parallel lines diagonally on the left top portion of the checks. The crossing is
special where the name of the bank or a business institution is written between the two
parallel lines, which means that the drawee should pay only with the intervention of that
company.
a) Effects of Crossed Checks
1) The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank.
2) The check may be negotiated only once—to one who has an account with a bank.
3) 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 he must inquire if he has received the check
pursuant to that purpose; otherwise, he is not a holder in due course.

b) Irregular Indorser is not a party to the instrument but he places his signature in blank
before delivery. He is not a party but he becomes one because of his signature in the
instrument. Because his signature he is considered an indorser and he is liable to the
parties in the instrument.
While, a General Indorser warrants that the instrument is genuine, that he has a good
title to it, that all prior parties had capacity to contract; that the instrument at the time of
the indorsement is valid and subsisting; and that on due presentment, the instrument
will be accepted or paid or both accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is
dishonored, he will pay if the necessary proceedings for dishonor are made.

3) The defense (personal defense) which Señorita Isobel can set up against Pete is that
the amount of P100,000.00 is not in accordance with the authority given to her to Brad
(in the presence of Pete) and that Pete was not a holder in due course for acting in bad
faith when accepted the note as payment despite his knowledge that it was only
10,000.00 that was allowed by Señorita Isobel during their meeting with Brad.

1986

LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
Questions:
 II.
As payment for good received, Masikap gave to Humimok on November 3, his check
drawn on the Eternal Bank of Manila. On November 11, Kahusayan went to Eternal
bank to encash the check. He could not cash the check because on November 10,
Central Bank forbidden Eternal Bank to do business in the Philippines on grounds of
insolvency. Masikap, Humimok, and Kahusayan all reside in Manila.

a) Can Kahusayan hold Masikap liable on the uncashed check? Explain briefly.
b) Can Kahusayan hold Humimok liable on the uncashed check? Explain briefly.
c) Can Kahusayan still collect from Humimok for the dental work done on the latter?
Explain briefly.
d) Assume that Eternal Bank was not closed by Central Bank but simply refused to
honor and encash the check. Can Kahusayan hold Masikap liable? Explain briefly.

Suggested Answer:
a) Kahusayan can hold Masikap secondarily liable on the uncashed check. A drawer of
a negotiable instrument assumes secondary liability under the NIL, which is to say that
an immediate right of recourse ensues in favor of the holder once the instrument is
dishonored.
b) The liability of Humimok would depend on how he negotiated the check to
Kahusayan. it was negotiated by delivery (as when it is payable to “cash”), Humimok
would not be secondarily liable; if, however, Humimok endorsed the check as a general
endorser then Kahusayan could hold Humimok secondarily liable. A qualified
indorsement by Humimok would, upon the other hand, preclude Kahusayan from
holding the former secondarily liable.
c) Kahusayan can still collect from Humimok what may be due for the dental work done,
since payment by means of check will only produce the effect of payment once the
instrument is encashed or, by the fault of the holder, it is impaired.
d) The secondary liability of Masikap to Kahusayan, as expressed in letter a) above, is
not dependent on the ability or capability of the drawee to honor the instrument.
Accordingly, Kahusayan can still hold Masikap liable.

Promissory Note
Questions:
V.
Sumabod issued a promissory note payable to the order of Panloob as consideration for
the textiles purchased from the latter. The promissory note recites that the amount of
P100,000 is payable in 5 monthly installments of P20,000 each, beginning on
December 1, 1986 and every first day of the month thereafter until fully paid, provided
that the holder may declare the entire amount due and demandable in the event the
maker fails to pay on time any installment in full, or whenever the holder for valid
reasons finds his claim insecure. Panloob indorsed and delivered the note for value to
Humabol who acted in good faith. Panloob’s factory burns down and he is unable to
deliver the textiles. Sumabod did not pay as promised.
Can Humabol as an innocent purchaser for value hold Sumabol liable on the promissory
note? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

Humabol can hold Suamabod liable on the promissory note. The statement in the
instrument providing for installment payment and an acceleration clause did not
adversely affect the negotiability of the instrument. Humabol, being a holder in due
course, may hold the maker liable under the note. Personal defenses that Sumabod
may raise against an immediate party may not be raised against a holder in due course.

XIV.
Romeo has P100,000 in his current account at the Matatag Banking Corporation.
Romeo learned that his enemy had hired a contract killer to liquidate him. Fearful for his
life, he mailed to his fiancée, Juliet, a check for P100,000 in the bank. The check was
payable to Juliet or order and was accompanied by a letter stating that he was giving
her his money out of his great love for her and because something would happen to him
anytime now.

a) Juliet presented the check for payment but the bank refused to honor it. Does Juliet
have any right of action against the bank? Explain.

b) The hit contract was called off by Romeo’s enemy. Meanwhile, Juliet broke off her
engagement to Romeo because of the humiliation she suffered at the bank. Does
Romeo have a right of action against the bank? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
a) Juliet has no cause of action against the bank. Under the NIL, a drawee has no
liability to the holder under an instrument until and after it has been accepted by such
drawee.
b) Romeo has a right of action against the bank. The juridical relation between the
drawer and drawee is not governed solely by the NIL. The relationship between the
bank and the drawer is governed primarily by their own agreement and by the
applicable provisions of the Civil Code under which a possible breach of obligation is
likely under the factual setting in the problem.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

MATERIAL ALTERATION

IX.

A.

Alfred issued a check for ₱1,000.00 to Benjamin, his friend, as payment for an
electronic gadget. The check was drawn against Alfred's account with Good Bank.
Benjamin then indorsed the check specially in favor of Cesar. However, Cesar
misplaced the check. Dexter, a dormmate of Cesar, found the check, altered its amount
to ₱91,000.00, and forged Cesar's indorsement by way of a blank indorsement in favor
of Felix, a known jeweler. Felix then caused the deposit of the check in his account with
Solar Bank. As collecting bank, Solar Bank stamped "all previous indorsements
guaranteed" on the check. Seeing such stamp of the collecting bank, Good Bank paid
the amount of ₱91,000.00 on the check.

May Good Bank claim reimbursement from Alfred?

a) Yes. Good bank can only collect 1,000
b) Yes. Good Bank can collect 91,000
c) No. Good Bank bears the loss
d) No. Good Bank cannot collect because he is in bad faith.

B.

In 2006, Donald, an American temporarily residing in Cebu City, issued to Rhodora a

check for $50,000.00 drawn against Wells Fargo Bank with offices in San Francisco,
California. Rhodora negotiated the check and delivered it to Yaasmin, a Filipina socialite
who frequently travelled locally and internationally. Because of her frequent travels,
Yasmin misplaced the check. It was only 11 years later on, in 2017, when she found the
check inside a diary kept in her vault in her Hollywood, California house.
What are the rights of Yaasmin on the check.

a) Yaasmins right is barred by the statute of limitations.

b) Prescription begins on discovery when Yasmin found the check.

c) Under the NIL check doesn’t have prescription.

d) Yasmin can present the check for acceptance.

DEFENSES
XI.
Which of the following are true:
a) Forgery is a real defense but may only be raised against a holder not in due
course.
b) Forgery is a real defense may be raised against a holder even not a holder in
due course
c) Forgery is personal defense but may only be raised against a holder not in due
course.
d) Forgery is a personal defense may be raised against a holder even not a holder
in due course

2005
FORMS AND INTERPRETATION

I.

(1.) What is a negotiable instrument? What are the characteristics of a negotiable

instrument.
(2.) Distinguish a negotiable document from a negotiable instrument.

Suggested Answer:
(1.) A
 a) a written contract for the payment of money which is intended as a substitute for
money and passes from one person to another as money, in such a manner as
to give a holder in due course the right to hold the instrument free from defenses
available to prior parties.
b) A document used in the ordinary course of business in the sale or transfer of goods as
proof of possession/control of the goods or authorizing/purporting to authorize the
holder of the document to transfer the goods represented by the document or receive
them by either by declivity or indorsement. 
c) is an acknowledgment by a bank of the receipt of money and its promise to pay
the money back on the due date, usually with interest. Certificates of deposit
generally pay more interest than regular savings accounts because the depositor
cannot withdraw the money before the due date without penalty.
d) a written instrument where by a person (for example aa buyer) requests another
(bank) and the latter agress to advance money or give credit to a third person (for
example a seller) and promises to repay the person making the advancement.
B.
a) Negotiability and Accumulation of Secondary Contracts
b) Assignability and Capability
c) Delivery and Substitution
d) Exchange and transferee

2) Negotiable Instrument is

KINDS OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

(3.) Which are the following are negotiable instruments under the Negotiable
Instruments Law
a) Postal Money Order
b) certificate of time deposit
c) Letters of credit
d) Warehouse receipts
e) Treasury warrants

LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
Questions:
II.
(1.) Dagul has a business arrangement with Facundo. The latter would lend money to
another, through Dagul, whose name would appear in the promissory note as the
lender. Dagul would then immediately indorse the note to Facundo.
Is Dagul an accommodation party? Explain.
(2.) a) What is a crossed check? A) What are the effects of crossing a check? Explain.
b) Distinguish an irregular indorser from a general indorser
(3.) Brad was in desperate need of money to pay his debt to Pete, a loan shark. Pete
threatened to take Brad’s life if he failed to pay. Brad and Pete went to see Señorita
Isobel, Brad’s rich cousin, and asked her if she could sign a promissory note in his favor
in the amount of P10,000.00 to pay Pete. Fearing that Pete would kill Brad, Señorita
Isobel acceded to the request. She affixed her signature on a piece of paper with the
assurance of Brad that he will just fill it up later. Brad then filled up the blank paper,
making a promissory note for the amount of P100,000.00. He then indorsed and
delivered the same to Pete, who accepted the note as payment of the debt.

What defense or defenses can Señorita Isobel set up against Pete? Explain.

Suggested Answer
(1.)
a) Dagul is an accommodation party. He is essentially, a person who signs as
maker without receiving any consideration.
b) Dagul is an accomodation party.
c) Dagul is not an accomodation party. He is not a surety.
d) Dagul is not an accomodation party. He is an guarantor.
(2.)
a) A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice, crossing a check is done by
writing two parallel lines diagonally on the left top portion of the checks.
b) A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice, crossing a check is done by
writing a cross on the left top portion of the checks.
c) A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice, crossing a check is done by
writing one parallel lines diagonally on the left top portion of the checks.
d) A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice, crossing a check is done by
writing three parallel lines diagonally on the left top portion of the checks.

A)
a) The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank.
b) The check is cancel
c) The check is stale
d) The check may be encashed.

B)
a) negotiable instrument includes checks, promissory note and bill of exchange while
negotiable document includes document of title and bill of lading
b) Negotiable instrument must meet under the requirement of Sec. 1 of the NIL while
negotiable document must meet the requirements under Sec. 2 of the NIL.
c) Negotiable instrument is under the Civil Code while negotiable document is under
negotiable instrument law
d) Negotiable instrument are purcahse of goods while negotiable document are
substitute for money

(3.) Brad was in desperate need of money to pay his debt to Pete, a loan shark. Pete
threatened to take Brad’s life if he failed to pay. Brad and Pete went to see Señorita
Isobel, Brad’s rich cousin, and asked her if she could sign a promissory note in his favor
in the amount of P10,000.00 to pay Pete. Fearing that Pete would kill Brad, Señorita
Isobel acceded to the request. She affixed her signature on a piece of paper with the
assurance of Brad that he will just fill it up later. Brad then filled up the blank paper,
making a promissory note for the amount of P100,000.00. He then indorsed and
delivered the same to Pete, who accepted the note as payment of the debt.
What defense or defenses can Señorita Isobel set up against Pete?
a) Personal defense. There is intimidation.
b) Real defense. There is illegally in the issue.
c) Breach of contract
d) Breach of warranty

LIABILITIES OF PARTIES
Questions:
II.
As payment for good received, Masikap gave to Humimok on November 3, his check
drawn on the Eternal Bank of Manila. On November 11, Kahusayan went to Eternal
bank to encash the check. He could not cash the check because on November 10,
Central Bank forbidden Eternal Bank to do business in the Philippines on grounds of
insolvency. Masikap, Humimok, and Kahusayan all reside in Manila.

a) Can Kahusayan hold Masikap liable on the uncashed check?

b) Can Kahusayan hold Humimok liable on the uncashed check?
c) Can Kahusayan still collect from Humimok for the dental work done on the latter?
d) Assume that Eternal Bank was not closed by Central Bank but simply refused to
honor and encash the check. Can Kahusayan hold Masikap liable?

Suggested
A.
a) Yes. Kahusayan can hold Masikap secondarily liable on the uncashed check.
b) Yes. Kahusayan can hold Masikap primarily liable on the uncashed check.
c) Yes. Kahusayan can hold Masikap liable for breach of warranty on the uncashed
check.
d) No. Kahusayan cannot hold Masikap liable because he is insolvent.

B.
a) Yes. Himook can hold Masikap secondarily liable on the uncashed check.
b) Yes. Himook can hold Masikap primarily liable on the uncashed check.
c) Yes. Himook can hold Masikap liable for breach of warranty on the uncashed check.
d) It depends. If it was negotiated by delivery (as when it is payable to “cash”), Humimok
would not be secondarily liable; if, however, Humimok endorsed the check as a general
endorser then Kahusayan could hold Humimok secondarily liable.

C.
a) Yes. Kahusayan can still collect from Humimok what may be due for the dental work
done, since payment by means of check will only produce the effect of payment once
the instrument is encashed or, by the fault of the holder, it is impaired.
b) No. Kahusayan can still collect from Humimok what may be due for the dental work
done, since the check is good as cash.
c) Yes. Kahusayan can still collect from Humimok what may be due for the dental work
done because of the contract.
d) No. Kahusayan cannot collect from Humimok because Humimok is insolvent.

D.
a) Yes. The secondary liability of Masikap to Kahusayan, as expressed in letter a)
above, is not dependent on the ability or capability of the drawee to honor the
instrument.
b) Yes. The primary liability of Masikap to Kahusayan, as expressed in letter a) above,
is not dependent on the ability or capability of the drawee to honor the instrument.
c) Yes. The thirtiary iability of Masikap to Kahusayan, as expressed in letter a) above, is
not dependent on the ability or capability of the drawee to honor the instrument.
d) Yes. The regular liability of Masikap to Kahusayan, as expressed in letter a) above, is
not dependent on the ability or capability of the drawee to honor the instrument.

Promissory Note
Questions:
V.

Sumabod issued a promissory note payable to the order of Panloob as consideration for
the textiles purchased from the latter. The promissory note recites that the amount of
P100,000 is payable in 5 monthly installments of P20,000 each, beginning on
December 1, 1986 and every first day of the month thereafter until fully paid, provided
that the holder may declare the entire amount due and demandable in the event the
maker fails to pay on time any installment in full, or whenever the holder for valid
reasons finds his claim insecure. Panloob indorsed and delivered the note for value to
Humabol who acted in good faith. Panloob’s factory burns down and he is unable to
deliver the textiles. Sumabod did not pay as promised.
Can Humabol as an innocent purchaser for value hold Sumabol liable on the promissory
note?

a) Yes. Humabol can hold Suamabod liable on the promissory note because he is a
holder in due course.
 b) No. Humabol cannot hold Suamabod liable on the promissory note because he is
not a holder in due course.
c) Yes. Humabol can hold Suamabod liable on the promissory note because
Somabod has the secondary principal in the issue.
d) No. Humabol is cannot hold Suamabod liable on the promissory note because he
is not a party.

XIV.
Romeo has P100,000 in his current account at the Matatag Banking Corporation.
Romeo learned that his enemy had hired a contract killer to liquidate him. Fearful for his
life, he mailed to his fiancée, Juliet, a check for P100,000 in the bank. The check was
payable to Juliet or order and was accompanied by a letter stating that he was giving
her his money out of his great love for her and because something would happen to him
anytime now.

a) Juliet presented the check for payment but the bank refused to honor it. Does Juliet
have any right of action against the bank?

b) The hit contract was called off by Romeo’s enemy. Meanwhile, Juliet broke off her
engagement to Romeo because of the humiliation she suffered at the bank. Does
Romeo have a right of action against the bank?

a) No. Juliet has no cause of action against the bank. Under the NIL, a drawee has
no liability to the holder under an instrument until and after it has been accepted
by such drawee.
b) Yes. Juliet as a fiancee of Romeo has absolute community of property.
c) Yes. It is an abuse of right on the part of the Matatag Banking Corporation.
d) No. Juliet has no cause of action because Romeo is not yet dead.