Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Manuel Ubas, SR., vs. Wilson Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Aileen Esplana
    Ubas filed a case against Chan to recover 1.5 million pesos for construction materials purchased by Chan. Chan issued checks to Ubas that were later dishonored due to a stop payment order. Chan claimed the checks were intended for the project engineer, not Ubas. However, the court ruled in favor of Ubas, finding the contract between them valid. Under Section 16 of the NIL, delivery of a check is presumed valid unless proven otherwise, which Chan failed to do. Therefore, Ubas was entitled to payment for the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Manuel Ubas, SR., vs. Wilson Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Aileen Esplana
    66 views2 pages
    Ubas filed a case against Chan to recover 1.5 million pesos for construction materials purchased by Chan. Chan issued checks to Ubas that were later dishonored due to a stop payment order. Chan claimed the checks were intended for the project engineer, not Ubas. However, the court ruled in favor of Ubas, finding the contract between them valid. Under Section 16 of the NIL, delivery of a check is presumed valid unless proven otherwise, which Chan failed to do. Therefore, Ubas was entitled to payment for the materials.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Ubas v. Chan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ubas filed a case against Chan to recover 1.5 million pesos for construction materials purchased by Chan. Chan issued checks to Ubas that were later dishonored due to a stop payment order. Chan claimed the checks were intended for the project engineer, not Ubas. However, the court ruled in favor of Ubas, finding the contract between them valid. Under Section 16 of the NIL, delivery of a check is presumed valid unless proven otherwise, which Chan failed to do. Therefore, Ubas was entitled to payment for the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Manuel Ubas, SR., vs. Wilson Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Aileen Esplana
    Ubas filed a case against Chan to recover 1.5 million pesos for construction materials purchased by Chan. Chan issued checks to Ubas that were later dishonored due to a stop payment order. Chan claimed the checks were intended for the project engineer, not Ubas. However, the court ruled in favor of Ubas, finding the contract between them valid. Under Section 16 of the NIL, delivery of a check is presumed valid unless proven otherwise, which Chan failed to do. Therefore, Ubas was entitled to payment for the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Manuel Ubas, Sr., vs.

    Wilson Chan
    February 6, 2017 | Perla S – Bernabe, J. | Section 16 of NIL

    Petitioner: Manuel C. Ubas, Sr.

    Respondent: Wilson Chan

    Summary: Chan is indebted to Ubas for the amount of P1.5 million pesos representing the
    construction materials purchased by him. Chan issued three checks to Ubas, however when it was
    presented for encashment by the latter, it was dishonored due to stop payment order. Chan contends
    that the checks were not intended for Ubas, but for the project engineer of Macagtas Dam Project.
    Because of his refusal to pay, Ubas filed an action for the recovery of sum of money with
    application for writ of attachment.

    Doctrine: The person whose signature appears in the instrument is liable to the holder thereof if
    there is a valid and intentional delivery. Under section 16 of the NIL, if the instrument is no longer
    in the hands of the person whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him
    is presumed until the contrary is proved. The burden of overcoming such presumption lies in the
    person making the delivery.

    FACTS:

    Ubas and Chan entered into a verbal agreement where Ubas will supply for the construction
    materials amounting to P1.5 million pesos for the Macagtas Dam Project. Chan has defaulted in
    payment and because of his refusal to pay, Ubas filed an action for the recovery of sum of money
    with an application for writ of attachment. According also to Ubas, Chan has given him three (3)
    checks that were dishonored by the bank when presented for encashment due to stop payment
    order. Chan contends on the other hand that the checks were not intended for Ubas but for the
    project engineer of Macagtas Dam Project.

    ISSUE: Whether or Not Ubas will be entitled for the payment of construction materials purchased
    by Chan.

    RULING:

    Yes, the Court ruled that Ubas will be entitled for the payment of the construction materials
    purchased by Chan.

    The Court explained that the right of Ubas for the payment of the construction materials was
    derived from the contract between them that is perfectly valid. Also, under section 16 of the NIL,
    when an instrument is no longer in the hands of the person whose signature appears thereon, a
    valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved. The purpose of the
    delivery is to transfer the property in the instrument to the holder therof.
    In this case, Chan has not able to prove that the checks were not intended for Ubas because if his
    contention that the checks were really intended for the project engineer who lost the same, then
    why did he not file a case for theft against Ubas, who according to him has stolen the checks and
    if Ubas has really stolen the check, then why did he included it in his demand letters to Chan.

    Therefore based on the foregoing, Chan has not able to overcome such presumption and thus he is
    liable to Ubas for the payment of the construction materials purchased by him.

    RATIO:

     ISSUE: Whether or Not Ubas is entitled for payment of the construction materials
    purchased by Chan

    The Court in this case ruled based on the validity of the contract between the parties and Section
    16 of the NIL. According to the Court, Ubas, through preponderance of evidence, has able to prove
    his claim and therefore is entitled for the payment of the construction materials purchased by Chan.

    You might also like