On the matter of failure of consideration, appellant must be mislaid

in her disquisitions pivoting on failure of consideration. Failure of

consideration – means the failure or refusal of one of the parties to
do, perform or comply with the consideration agreed upon. In other
words, something was agreed upon as consideration but for some
cause, such agreed consideration failed to materialize.
(www.academia.edu; citing: Negotiable Instruments Law, HECTOR S.
DE LEON, HECTOR M.DE LEON, JR., June 2010). Failure of
consideration means the failure or refusal of one of the parties to do,
perform or comply with the consideration agreed upon.
(Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the
Philippines, by: Aguedo F. Agbayani, Vol. I, 1978 Edition, page 213).

It implies that the giving of valuable consideration was contemplated

but that it failed to pass. (id. citing: Homer Bldg. & Loan Association
Assn. V. Noble, 120 Pa. Super. 153, 181 Atl. 848). It means that
something which apparently was a good consideration, but for some
cause, or another the consideration failed. (Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, by:
Teodorico C. Martin, Vol. I, 1980-1981 Revised Edition, Page 132);

11. In the case, the loan agreement and the loan obtained by
appellant as co-maker as evidenced by the subject Promissory Note
and supported by the subject checks was a loan agreement between
appellant and appellee. In consideration for the loan extended by
appellee, the subject checks were issued by appellant and his son as
in fact, the amount or cash loan were obtained by appellant and his
son. Thus, between appellant and appellee, there was no failure of
consideration since appellee performed and complied with its
obligation to extend loan to appellant. The Agreed Consideration
materialized. Insofar as appellant and appellee are concerned, who
are parties to the loan agreement and only to that loan agreement,
there was no consideration or cause for appellant to secure and/or
process the overseas employment of appellant’s son. That is not the
cause or consideration of the loan contract. Therefore, as against
Appellee, appellant cannot validly assert failure of consideration of
the loan contract and the issuance of the subjects. Perhaps at best,
appellant’s recourse is to proceed against MEC and/or
Florita Tolentino since the latter and appellant were the parties to that
alleged recruitment wherein human trafficking ensued according to
appellant. The alleged and asserted failure of consideration as a
result of the illegal recruitment and/or human trafficking, assuming
there was failure of consideration relative to these activities may be
interposed or invoked only against MEC and/or Florita Tolentino and
certainly not against appellant;

It is an age-old rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden
of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and
convincing. Mere allegation is not evidence. (DIONARTO Q.
NOBLEJAS Vs. ITALIAN MARITIME ACADEMY PHILS., INC., ET AL., G.R.
No. 207888, June 9, 2014);

a. that the value of the checks and that in the promissory note
are sufficient to support a simple contract (SEC. 25 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law).
b. “Presumption of consideration. — Every negotiable
instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued
for a valuable consideration; and every person whose
signature appears thereon to become a party become
a party thereto for value.” (Section 24, Negotiable
Instruments Law)
c.
d. “We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed
that the same was issued for valuable consideration.”
(DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC. Vs. CLEOFE S.
JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI, G.R. No.
184861, June 30, 2009)
e.
f. Authority on the a matter also have it that –
g.
h. “It is important to stress that a check which is regular
on its face is deemed prima facie to have been issued
for valuable consideration and every person whose
signature appears thereon is deemed to have become
a party thereto for value. Thus, the mere introduction
of the instrument sued on in evidence prima facie
entitles the plaintiff to recovery. Further, the rule is
quite settled that a negotiable instrument is presumed
to have been given or indorsed for an efficient
consideration unless otherwise contradicted and
overcome by other competent evidence.”
(The Law on Negotiable Instruments by: Justo P.
Torres, 2000 Edition, page 198; citing: Travel-On, Inc.
Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56169, June 26, 1992)
i.
j. 6. That Accused have not presented controverting evidence
that the checks were not issued for valuable consideration or
to apply for account or for value;
**************
In ] the Court has expressly recognized that a check "constitutes an evidence
of indebtedness" and is a veritable "proof of an obligation." Hence,
petitioner may rely on the same as proof of respondent's personal
obligation to him.

[ GR No. 215910, Feb 06, 2017 ]

MANUEL C. UBAS v. WILSON CHAN

 II. CONSIDERATION

Sec. 24. Presumption of consideration. - 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.

Sec. 25. Value, what constitutes. — Value is any consideration sufficient to

support a simple contract. An antecedent or pre-existing debt constitutes
value; and is deemed such whether the instrument is payable on demand
or at a future time.

it is presumed that a written contract is for a valuable consideration.85

g.R. No. 179874 June 22, 2015

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO, VIRGINIA DIO, RENATO DIO, and HEIRS OF ROBERTO DIO,
represented by ROGER DIO, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES MARIA JERERA AND EBON LATAGAN, substituted by his heirs, namely: MA.
JANELITA LATAGAN-BULAWAN, YVONNE LATAGAN, LESLIE LATAGAN, RODOLFO H.
LATAGAN, EMMANUEL NOEL H. LATAGAN, GEMMA LATAGAN-DE LEON, MARIE GLEN
LATAGAN-CERUJALES, and CELESTE LATAGAN-BO; and SALVE VDA. DE JERERA

A contract is presumed to be supported by cause or consideration.[21] The

presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be
overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no consideration.To
overcome the presumption, the alleged lack of consideration must be
shown by preponderance of evidence.[22] The burden to prove lack of
consideration rests upon whoever alleges it, which, in the present case,
is respondent. CARMELA BROBIO MANGAHAS,
Petitioner,

- versus -

EUFROCINA A. BROBIO,
Respondent. G.R. No. 183852
October 20, 2010

We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to

the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable
consideration which may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit
accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance,
detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given,
suffered or undertaken by the other side.[14] Under the Negotiable Instruments
Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the same for a
consideration or for value.[15] As petitioner alleged that there was no
consideration for the issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to
present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption and prove that the
checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration.[16]
(ENGR. JOSE E. CAYANAN,
Petitioner,

- versus -

NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC.,

Respondent.
G.R. No. 172954 October 5, 2011
))

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
RULE 131

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

Thus, the execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership of a realty is in itself prima facie
evidence of the existence of a valuable consideration and the party alleging lack of consideration
has the burden of proving such allegation.86

Citiing: Pacheco v. CA,[40377 Phil. 627 (1999).