Professional Documents
Culture Documents
#1 Far East Realty vs. CA
#1 Far East Realty vs. CA
CA
Facts:
Dy Hiat Tat, Gaw Suy, and Siy Chee (RESPONDENTS)
approached Far East Realty Investment (FERI) in its
office to ask for an accommodation loan of Php4500.
On September 13, 1960, respondents issued a
Php4500 China Bank check to be paid after one month
to repay the loan.March 5, 1964 the check was
presented to China Bank but it bounced because the
account was already closed. FERI made multiple
demands but failed to collect. Hence, they filed a case
in the RTC to collect the Php4500.
Respondents defense:
1) They never asked for a loan from FERI. As can be seen from the
endorsements at the back of the check, it wasnt directly delivered to FERI
and that the check passed through other hands since they issued the
check for other purposes (Tat: to pay their grocery bills from Sin Chin Juat
Grocery; Gaw Suy An, who endorsed the check for his principal, Victory
Hardware, this check was delivered to the Asian Surety & Insurance Co.,
Inc., to be applied to the indebtedness of the Victory Hardware with said
Insurance Company). It wasnt, as FERI claims, a security for their loan.
Hence, respondents invoke the defense of lack of consideration for the
check against FERI.
Issue:
1. W/n presentment for payment can be dispensed
with
2. w/n presentment for payment and notice of
dishonor was made within reasonable time?
HELD:
1. No. Where the instrument is not payable on
demand (fixed date), presentment must be made on
the day it falls due. Where it is payable on demand,
presentment must be made within a reasonable time
after issue, except that in the case of a bill of
exchange, presentment for payment will be sufficient
if made within a reasonable time after the last
negotiation
thereof
(Section
71,
Negotiable
Instruments Law).
2. There is unreasonable delay. Respondents are NOT
liable to pay
In the case at bar, it is obvious that notice and
#3 Crystal vs. CA
Facts:
Civil case (Ocang vs. Montayre) instituted in Cebu
pertaining the estate of Nicholas Rafols. After the
decision had been final and executory Court sold 4 to
5 parcels of land through a public auction to Ocang
(10,000). In 1958, heirs assigned their right of
redemption to crystal. By virtue of this, he deposited
11,200 with the provincial sheriff of cebu and took
possession of the lands and cultivated the same.
Crystal was dispossessed by former owner Ocang,
who justified her actions by alleging that the
redemption was void due to the check allegedly
being dishonored due to lack of sufficient funds
or being stale.
Issue:
w/n the check was encashed and can be considered
effective as payment
Held:
Yes
While it is true that the delivery of a check produces
the effect of payment only when it is cashed, pursuant
to Art. 1249 of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if
the debtor (Pearroyo) is prejudiced by the creditors
(Papas) unreasonable delay in presentment. The
acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of
due diligence in presenting it for payment, and if
he from whom it is received sustains loss by want
of such diligence, it will be held to operate as
actual payment of the debt or obligation for
which it was given.
In this case, granting that check was never encashed,
Papas failure to do so for more than ten (10) years
undoubtedly resulted in the impairment of the check
through his unreasonable and unexplained delay. After
more than ten (10) years from the payment in part by
cash and in part by check, the presumption is that the
check had been encashed.
#5 International Corporate Bank vs. Spouses
Guico
Facts:
Indeed, the circumstances that caused the nonpresentment of the check should be considered to
determine who should bear the loss. In this case, ICB
held on the check and refused to encash the same
because of the controversy surrounding the signing of
the joint motion to dismiss. There is no bad faith or
negligence on the part of ICB.
#6 PNB vs. CA and PCIB
Facts:
Jan. 15, 1962, Augusto Lim deposited in his current
account with PCIB a Check from GSIS for P57, 415. It
was drawn against PNB.
Following an established banking practice in the
Philippines, the check was, on the same date,
forwarded, for clearing, through the Central Bank, to
the PNB, which did not return said check the next day,
or at any other time.
PNB paid PCIB. It then debited the account of GSIS.
GSIS demanded that PNB re-credit its account, as the
signatures of its (GSISs) officers were forged.
PNB re-credited GSIS. Sought repayment from PCIB.
PCIB refused. Hence this action.
Ultimately, PNB loses. Because:
Doctrine: