Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mauricio A. Soriano, Chief of the Money Order Division of the Manila Post Office, acting for and in behalf of Post-master
Enrico Palomar, notified the Bank of America that money order 124688 attached to his letter had been found to have
been irregularly issued and that, in view thereof, the amount it represented had been deducted from the bank's clearing
account.
The Bank of America debited Philippine Education Co.'s account with the same amount and gave it advice thereof by
means of a debit memo.
Philippine Education Co. requested the Postmaster General to reconsider the action taken by his office
from the clearing account of the Bank of America, but his request was denied. The matter was elevated to the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications, but the latter sustained the actions taken by the postal officers.
Sesbreo v. CA
FACTS: Petitioner Raul Sesbreno made a money market placement with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation
(Philfinance), with a term of 32 days. PhilFinance issued to Sesbreno the Certificate of Sale of a Delta Motor Corporation
Promissory Note, the Certificate lf Securities Delivery Rseceipt indicating the sale of the note with notation that said
security was in the custody of Pilipinas Bank, and postdated checks drawn againsy the Insular Bank of Asia and America
payable on March 13, 1981. The checks were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Pilipinas Bank
never released the note, nor any instrument related thereto, to Sesbreno; but the latter learned that the securit was
issued on April 10, 1980, maturing on April 6, 1981 with Philfinance as payee and Delta Motors as maker; and was
stamped "non-negotiable" on its face. As Sesbreno was unable to collect his investment and interest thereon, he filed an
action for damages against Delta Motors and Pilipinas Bank. Delta Motors contents that said promissory note was not
intended to be negotiated or otherwise transferred by Philfinance as manifested by the word "non-negotiable" stamped
across the face of the note.
ISSUE: Whether the non-negotiability of a promissory note prevents its assignment.
HELD: A negitiable instrument, instead of being negotiated, may also be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences
of negotiation and assignment of the instrument are different. A non-negotiable instrument may not be negotiated but
may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in the face of the
written. The subject promissory note, while marked "non-negotiable" was not at the same time stamped "nontransferable" or "non-assignable." It contained no stipulation which prohibited Philfinance from assigning or transferring
such note, in whole or in part.
BELISARIO V. NATIVIDAD ZULUETA
G.R. NO. 39815 APRIL 28, 1934
BUTTE, J.:
FACTS:
EULALIO BELISARIO sold the said lands absolutely and without reservation to PAZ NATIVIDAD VIUDA DE
ZULUETA for the consideration of P37,000, which was duly paid, and the agreement on the part of the grantee to
assume an indebtedness secured by a lien for 4, 500, which was likewise duly paid. The deed recites that the sale is
absolute and in perpetuity and the grantor warrants to defend the title. On the same date the defendant executed and
delivered in favor of the plaintiff Exhibit B which, after reciting that the defendant is the plaintiff an option to repurchase
the lands on or before the end of May, 1931, for the sum of P37,000.
Plaintiff appeared at the house of the defendant and offered to exercise his option of repurchase under said
Exhibit B by tendering to the defendant a check in the sum of P37,000.
March 3, 1997