Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Salas Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    A petitioner defaulted on payments for a vehicle purchase. She argued discrepancies in vehicle identification numbers meant a different vehicle was delivered. The private respondent filed a collection case. The Court of Appeals ruled for the private respondent. The Supreme Court found the promissory note was a negotiable instrument, meeting all requirements. It was endorsed to the private respondent, making them a holder in due course. As such, the private respondent takes the instrument free from defects or defenses that could be used between prior parties. The Court upheld the ruling for the private respondent.

    Copyright:

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

    Salas Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    1K views4 pages
    A petitioner defaulted on payments for a vehicle purchase. She argued discrepancies in vehicle identification numbers meant a different vehicle was delivered. The private respondent filed a collection case. The Court of Appeals ruled for the private respondent. The Supreme Court found the promissory note was a negotiable instrument, meeting all requirements. It was endorsed to the private respondent, making them a holder in due course. As such, the private respondent takes the instrument free from defects or defenses that could be used between prior parties. The Court upheld the ruling for the private respondent.

    Original Description:

    b

    Original Title

    Salas vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A petitioner defaulted on payments for a vehicle purchase. She argued discrepancies in vehicle identification numbers meant a different vehicle was delivered. The private respondent filed a collection case. The Court of Appeals ruled for the private respondent. The Supreme Court found the promissory note was a negotiable instrument, meeting all requirements. It was endorsed to the private respondent, making them a holder in due course. As such, the private respondent takes the instrument free from defects or defenses that could be used between prior parties. The Court upheld the ruling for the private respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views4 pages

    Salas Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    A petitioner defaulted on payments for a vehicle purchase. She argued discrepancies in vehicle identification numbers meant a different vehicle was delivered. The private respondent filed a collection case. The Court of Appeals ruled for the private respondent. The Supreme Court found the promissory note was a negotiable instrument, meeting all requirements. It was endorsed to the private respondent, making them a holder in due course. As such, the private respondent takes the instrument free from defects or defenses that could be used between prior parties. The Court upheld the ruling for the private respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Salas vs CA

    G.R. No. 76788


    January 22, 1990
    Petitioner: JUANITA SALAS
    Respondents: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRST
    FINANCE & LEASING CORPORATION
    Topic: Collection Suit; Requisites of HIDC
    Facts:
    Petitioner Salas bought a motor vehicle from the
    Violago Motor Sales Corporation (VMSC) evidenced by a
    promissory note. VMSC subsequently endorsed to Private
    Respondent Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation which
    financed the purchase.
    Petitioner defaulted in her installments 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.
    This failure to pay prompted private respondent to
    initiate a case for the collection of a sum of money
    against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
    Pampanga.
    The trial court decided in favor of the PR.

    Both petitioner and private respondent appealed the


    aforesaid decision to the Court of Appeals.
    Imputing fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation
    against VMS for having delivered a different vehicle to
    petitioner, the latter prayed for a reversal of the trial
    court's decision so that she may be absolved from the
    obligation under the contract.
    The Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision.
    Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied;
    hence, the present recourse.
    Issues:
    whether the promissory note in question is a negotiable
    instrument which will bar completely all the available
    defenses of the petitioner against private respondent.
    Held:
    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 21 st 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.
    In the case at bar, however, the situation is different.
    Indubitably, the basis of private respondent's claim
    against petitioner is a promissory note which bears all the
    earmarks of negotiability.
    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. This being so, petitioner
    cannot set up against respondent the defense of nullity of
    the contract of sale between her and VMS.

    Doctrines:

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy