G.R. No. 158262 (Digest)
G.R. No. 158262 (Digest)
G.R. No. 158262 (Digest)
spouses would just have to pay a down payment of PhP 60.5K while the balance
would be financed by BA Finance.
August 4, 1983: the spouses and Avelino signed a promissory note under which
they bound themselves to pay jointly and severally to the order of VMSC the
amount of PhP 209,601 in 36 monthly installments of PhP 5,822.25 a month, the
first installment to be due and payable on September 16, 1983.
VMSC then issued a sales invoice in favor of the spouses with a detailed
description of the Toyota Cressida car.
In turn, the spouses executed a chattel mortgage over the car in favor of
VMSC as security for the amount of PhP 209,601.
VMSC executed a Deed of Assignment of its rights and interests under the
promissory note and chattel mortgage in favor of BA Finance. Meanwhile, the
spouses remitted the amount of PhP 60,500 to VMSC through Avelino
spouses were unaware that the same car had already been sold in 1982 to
Esmeraldo Violago, another cousin of Avelino
Since VMSC failed to deliver the car, Pedro did not pay any monthly
amortization to BA Finance.
March 1, 1984: BA Finance filed with the RTC a complaint for Replevin with
indemnified by Avelino
CA: affirmed - promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that BA Finance
HELD: YES. CA reversed because Avelino and VMSC are the same
negotiable:
Section 1. Form of Negotiable Instruments. An instrument to be negotiable must
conform to the following requirements:
(a)
(b)
money;
(c)
(d)
(e)
Section 52. What constitutes a holder in due course.A holder in due course is a holder
who has taken the instrument under the following conditions:
(a)
(b)
(d)
That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the
(a) the Promissory Note, Exhibit A, is complete and regular; (b) the
Promissory Note was endorsed by the VMSC in favor of the Appellee; (c) the
Appellee, when it accepted the Note, acted in good faith and for value; (d) the
Appellee was never informed, before and at the time the Promissory Note was
endorsed to the Appellee, that the vehicle sold to the Defendants-Appellants was
not delivered to the latter and that VMSC had already previously sold the vehicle to
Esmeraldo Violago. Although Jose Olvido mortgaged the vehicle to Generoso Lopez,
who assigned his rights to the BA Finance Corporation (Cebu Branch), the same
occurred only on May 8, 1987, much later than August 4, 1983, when VMSC
assigned its rights over the Chattel Mortgage by the Defendants-Appellants to the
Appellee. Hence, Appellee was a holder in due course
Since BA Finance is a holder in due course, petitioners cannot raise the defense
of non-delivery of the object and nullity of the sale against the corporation.
obligation was incurred in the name of the corporation, the petitioner [Arcilla]
would still be personally liable therefor because for all legal intents and purposes, he
and the corporation are one and the same