Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 374 views

    Juanita Salas Vs CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mary Joyce Lacambra Aquino
    The case discusses whether a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle is a negotiable instrument. The court found that the note met the requirements to be considered negotiable as it was in writing, signed, contained an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount on determinable dates, and was payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation or order. As such, Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation, who the note was endorsed to, is considered a holder in due course and Juanita Salas cannot use defenses against the discrepancy in the vehicle against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Juanita Salas Vs CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mary Joyce Lacambra Aquino
    374 views2 pages
    The case discusses whether a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle is a negotiable instrument. The court found that the note met the requirements to be considered negotiable as it was in writing, signed, contained an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount on determinable dates, and was payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation or order. As such, Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation, who the note was endorsed to, is considered a holder in due course and Juanita Salas cannot use defenses against the discrepancy in the vehicle against Filinvest.

    Original Description:

    Juanita Salas vs CA Et Al

    Original Title

    Juanita Salas vs CA Et Al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case discusses whether a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle is a negotiable instrument. The court found that the note met the requirements to be considered negotiable as it was in writing, signed, contained an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount on determinable dates, and was payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation or order. As such, Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation, who the note was endorsed to, is considered a holder in due course and Juanita Salas cannot use defenses against the discrepancy in the vehicle against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    374 views2 pages

    Juanita Salas Vs CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mary Joyce Lacambra Aquino
    The case discusses whether a promissory note signed by Juanita Salas for the purchase of a vehicle is a negotiable instrument. The court found that the note met the requirements to be considered negotiable as it was in writing, signed, contained an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount on determinable dates, and was payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation or order. As such, Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation, who the note was endorsed to, is considered a holder in due course and Juanita Salas cannot use defenses against the discrepancy in the vehicle against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JUANITA SALAS VS CA et al GR 76788 JAN 22, 1990

    FACTS:

     Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales
    Corporation (VMS for brevity) for P58,138.20 as evidenced by a
    promissory note. This note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest
    Finance & Leasing Corporation which financed the purchase.
     Petitioner defaulted in her installments beginning May 21, 1980 allegedly
    due to a discrepancy in the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle
    delivered to her and those indicated in the sales invoice, certificate of
    registration and deed of chattel mortgage, which fact she discovered when
    the vehicle figured in an accident.
     Petitioner’s failure to pay prompted private respondent to initiate an
    action for a sum of money against petitioner.
     RTC: against petitioner
     CA: affirmed lower court’s decision

    ISSUE: whether the promissory note is a negotiable instrument which


    will bar completely all the available defenses of the petitioner against
    private respondent.

    RULING:
    Among others, the instrument in order to be considered negotiable
    must contain the so-called “words of negotiability—i.e., must be payable
    to ‘order’ or ‘bearer.’ ”
    Under Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, there are only
    two ways by which an instrument may be made payable to order. There
    must always be a specified person named in the instrument and the bill
    or note is to be paid to the person designated in the instrument or to any
    person to whom he has indorsed and delivered the same. Without the
    words “or order” or “to the order of”, the instrument is payable only to the
    person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any
    subsequent purchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a
    holder of a negotiable instrument, but will merely “step into the shoes” of
    the person designated in the instrument and will thus be open to all
    defenses available against the latter. Such being the situation in the
    above-cited case, it was held that therein private respondent is not a
    holder in due course but a mere assignee against whom all defenses
    available to the assignor may be raised.

    A careful study of the questioned promissory note shows that it is a


    negotiable instrument, having complied with the requisites under the law
    as follows:
    [a] it is in writing and signed by the maker Juanita Salas;
    [b] it contains an unconditional promise to pay the amount of
    P58,138.20;
    [c] it is payable at a fixed or determinable future time which is
    “P1,614.95 monthly for 36 months due and payable on the 21st day of each
    month starting March 21, 1980 thru and inclusive of Feb. 21, 1983;”
    [d] it is payable to Violago Motor Sales Corporation, or order and as
    such,
    [e] the drawee is named or indicated with certainty.

    It was negotiated by indorsement in writing on the instrument itself


    payable to the Order of Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation and it
    is an indorsement of the entire instrument.

    Under the circumstances, there appears to be no question that


    Filinvest is a holder in due course, having taken the instrument under the
    following conditions:
    [a] it is complete and regular upon its face;
    [b] it became the holder thereof before it was overdue, and without
    notice that it had previously been dishonored;
    [c] it took the same in good faith and for value; and
    [d] when it was negotiated to Filinvest, the latter had no notice of any
    infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of VMS Corporation.

    Accordingly, respondent corporation holds the instrument free from


    any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior
    parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument
    for the full amount thereof.13 This being so, petitioner cannot set up
    against respondent the defense of nullity of the contract of sale between
    her and VMS.

    Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an iota of truth
    in petitioner’s allegation that there was in fact deception made upon her
    in that the vehicle she purchased was different from that actually
    delivered to her, this matter cannot be passed upon in the case before us,
    where the VMS was never impleaded as a party.

    Note.—The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable


    to the order of a specified person or to him or his order

    You might also like