SPS.

SERGIO AND MILAGROS OJEDA

vs.
ANDRELINA ORBETA
G.R. NO. 142047 July 10, 2006

FACTS:
From 1986 to 1989, the spouses Ojeda obtained various loans they would use as additional capital from
Andrelina Orbeta. Over time, Orbeta extended a total of 18 loans to the spouses. Although the couple failed to
pay their obligations on time, Orbeta continued to accommodate them, and lent them more money on the
assurance that they would soon pay all their debts. To their sincerity, they aver, they even delivered a copy of
the registration papers of one of their vehicles to Orbeta.

Notwithstanding all their promises, however, the spouses' obligations remained unpaid. Frustrated by their
failure to pay, Orbeta through her lawyer sent a demand letter to the spouses on March 1989. Eventually, on
July 1989, after an accounting of all outstanding loans due, Milagros Ojeda issued Security Bank and Trust
Company Check No. 027836 dated September 1, 1989 for P487,133.87, representing full settlement of all
obligations due in favor of Orbeta. When presented for payment, however, the check was dishonored for having
been drawn against an account already closed. Consequently, Orbeta filed Criminal Case for violation of BP22
against Milagros Ojeda with the RTC of Quezon City. The trial court found said accused GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Petitioners maintain that any obligation arising from Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836 is
invalid and illegal since the same was issued in blank except for the signature of Milagros Ojeda. They further
claim that they already paid P55,000 to satisfy their obligation to Orbeta of P30,000 only.

ISSUE:
Are the spouses liable for issuing Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836?

RULING:
The allegation of the spouses that Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836 was delivered to Orbeta
in blank except for the signature of Milagros Ojeda and the amount of P10,000 annotated at the back of the
check, and their contention that they cannot be held liable for the face value of the check since Milagros Ojeda
was not the one who filled up the date, name of the payee and the amount appearing on the check, are
questions of fact that require us to re-examine the evidence presented by the contending parties during trial.
This cannot be done in a petition for review. Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review, except in very few specified instances, e.g. where there is variance in the factual findings of the trial and
appellate courts. Since both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals agree on the cited facts, we are
bound by their factual findings.

In any event, the spouses do not deny that the check was delivered to Orbeta and that the signature appearing
on the check belongs to Milagros Ojeda. Even if the check was delivered to Orbeta in blank, we must stress that
the presumption is that the latter had prima facie authority to complete the check by filling up the same. Here,
the provision of Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is pertinent:

SEC. 14. Blanks; when may be filled. - Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the
person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a
signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper may be
converted into a negotiable instrument operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. In
order, however, that any such instrument, when completed may be enforced against any person who became a
party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and
within a reasonable time. But if any such instrument, after completion, is negotiated to a holder in due course, it
is valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in
accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. (Emphasis supplied.)

The law merely requires that the instrument be in the possession of a person other than the drawer or maker,
and from such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a material particular, the law
presumes agency to fill up the blanks. Because of the presumption of authority, the burden of proving that there
was no authority or that the authority granted was exceeded is placed on the person questioning such authority.
There is nothing on record to show that the prima facie presumption created by the afore-quoted section was
successfully refuted by the spouses. Therefore, the couple's stance that they cannot be held liable for the check
because they were not the ones who wrote the date, the name of the payee and the amount, is untenable.