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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Sanson VS CA CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Joyciie Contreras
    Felicito Sanson and others filed claims against the estate of Juan See for unpaid debts. They presented checks issued by Juan See as evidence of the transactions. However, the checks were dishonored after Juan See's death. The heirs of Juan See did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that the checks were issued for valuable consideration. The Court held that since the heirs did not rebut the presumption of consideration, it became conclusive based on legal provisions that negotiable instruments are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration.

    Copyright:

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

    Sanson VS CA CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Joyciie Contreras
    64 views1 page
    Felicito Sanson and others filed claims against the estate of Juan See for unpaid debts. They presented checks issued by Juan See as evidence of the transactions. However, the checks were dishonored after Juan See's death. The heirs of Juan See did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that the checks were issued for valuable consideration. The Court held that since the heirs did not rebut the presumption of consideration, it became conclusive based on legal provisions that negotiable instruments are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration.

    Original Title

    Sanson VS CA CASE DIGEST.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Felicito Sanson and others filed claims against the estate of Juan See for unpaid debts. They presented checks issued by Juan See as evidence of the transactions. However, the checks were dishonored after Juan See's death. The heirs of Juan See did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that the checks were issued for valuable consideration. The Court held that since the heirs did not rebut the presumption of consideration, it became conclusive based on legal provisions that negotiable instruments are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views1 page

    Sanson VS CA CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Joyciie Contreras
    Felicito Sanson and others filed claims against the estate of Juan See for unpaid debts. They presented checks issued by Juan See as evidence of the transactions. However, the checks were dishonored after Juan See's death. The heirs of Juan See did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that the checks were issued for valuable consideration. The Court held that since the heirs did not rebut the presumption of consideration, it became conclusive based on legal provisions that negotiable instruments are presumed to be issued for valuable consideration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Felicito Sanson, et al. vs. Court of Appeals - GR No.

    127745 Case Digest


    Facts:

    Felicito Sanson filed a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Juan See.
    Sanson claimed that the deceased was indebted to him in the amount of Php 603,
    000.00 and to his sister Caledonia Sanson-Saquin in the amount of Php 320,000.00.
    also petitioner Eduardo Montinola and his mother filed separate claims against the
    estate alleging that the deceased owed them Php50,000 and Php 150, 000,
    respectively. During the trial, Caledonia and Felicito Sanson testified that they had
    transaction with the deceased evidenced by six checks issued by the deceased before
    he died and that after his death, Felicito and Caledonia presented the checks to the
    bank for payment but were dishonored due to the closure of the account. The same
    transaction happened to Eduardo and Angeles Montionola but when they presented the
    check to the bank, it was dishonored. Demand letters were sent to the heirs of the
    deceased but the checks remained unsettled.

    Issue:

    Whether or not presumption of consideration may be rebutted even if the heirs did not
    present any evidence to controvert it.

    Held:

    When the fact was established by a witness that it was the deceased who signed the
    checks and in fact who entered into the transaction, the genuineness of the deceased
    signature having been shown, the latter is prima facie presumed to have been a party to
    the check for value, following Section 24 of NIL which provides that “every negotiable
    instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration; and
    every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for
    value.”

    Since the prima facie presumption was not rebutted or contradicted by the heirs, it has
    become conclusive.

    You might also like