You are on page 1of 2

1.

A. Yes. As a rule an instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following


requirements:
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d)
Must
be
payable
to
order
or
to
bearer;
and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise
indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

In the case at bar, the instrument bears the entire essential requisite to
be negotiable. The effect of the omission of the date will not make the
instrument non-negotiable. In such case, the instrument will be considered to
be dated as of the time it was issued.

B. Mr. Pedicure is not correct. Mr. Hairdo is a holder in due course since
all the conditions are present in order to qualify a person as a holder in due
course. Furthermore the law provides that the validity and negotiability of an
instrument is not affected if it is not dated. The date of issuance is not a
requisite for the instrument to be negotiable.

2.
A. Yes. The city government is correct that the petitioner have no legal
personality. As a rule a corporation does not formally organize and
commence the transaction of its business or the construction of its works
within two years from the date of its incorporation shall be deemed dissolved
except when such failure is due to causes beyond its control. The cessation
of corporate powers operates as dissolution
B. Yes. As a rule if a corporation does not formally organize and
commence the transaction of its business or the construction of its works
within two years from the date of its incorporation its corporate powers and
corporation shall be deemed dissolved. However there is no automatic
dissolution until the dissolution have been lawfully declared by the SEC after
notice and hearing as required by due process but the effect of the
declaration shall retroact to the time the corporation should be deemed
dissolved.

3.
The case against Mr. Sorry shall be dismissed. Under it is clear that where a
corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of
directors or trustees. Note that petitioner failed to show any proof that he
was authorized or deputized or granted specific powers by Argos Corp.
board of director to sue Mr. Sorry for and on behalf of the corporation.
Failure to attach a certified copy of the board resolution authorizing the filling
of petition is deemed a fatal to a complaint filed, because courts are not
expected to take judicial notice of corporate board resolutions or a corporate
officers authority to represent a corporation.
4
A. No.Mr. Oleg cannot be successful in his claim because he is not a
party to the insurance contract. The transfer of the ownership of
motor vehicle does not include the transfer of the insurance policy.
B. Both Mr. Oleg and Mr. Arillo may not claim from the insurer. In
property insurance the insured must have insurable interest over
the property at the time of the perfection and at the time of the
loss. Mr. Arillo cannot recover because he had already sold the
motorvehicle at the time of the loss. Although Mr. Arillo had
insurable interest over the motor vehicle at the time of the
inception of the policy, he did not have insurable interest on the
insured property at the time of the loss neither Mr. Oleg cannot
recover for he he is not a party to the insurance contract. The
transfer of the ownership of motor vehicle does not include the
transfer of the insurance policy.
5
A.