Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Salas vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    1) Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation and signed a promissory note, which was then endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments claiming a discrepancy in the vehicle details. 2) Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation sued Salas for the unpaid amount. The issue was whether Filinvest was a holder in due course. 3) The court held that Filinvest was a holder in due course as it acquired the promissory note through a proper endorsement, before it was overdue, in good faith and for value, and without knowledge of any issues. Therefore, Salas could not use defenses from the original sale against Fil

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salas vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    74 views1 page
    1) Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation and signed a promissory note, which was then endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments claiming a discrepancy in the vehicle details. 2) Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation sued Salas for the unpaid amount. The issue was whether Filinvest was a holder in due course. 3) The court held that Filinvest was a holder in due course as it acquired the promissory note through a proper endorsement, before it was overdue, in good faith and for value, and without knowledge of any issues. Therefore, Salas could not use defenses from the original sale against Fil

    Original Title

    SALAS VS. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation and signed a promissory note, which was then endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments claiming a discrepancy in the vehicle details. 2) Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation sued Salas for the unpaid amount. The issue was whether Filinvest was a holder in due course. 3) The court held that Filinvest was a holder in due course as it acquired the promissory note through a proper endorsement, before it was overdue, in good faith and for value, and without knowledge of any issues. Therefore, Salas could not use defenses from the original sale against Fil

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    Salas vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    1) Juanita Salas bought a motor vehicle from Violago Motor Sales Corporation and signed a promissory note, which was then endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation. Salas defaulted on payments claiming a discrepancy in the vehicle details. 2) Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation sued Salas for the unpaid amount. The issue was whether Filinvest was a holder in due course. 3) The court held that Filinvest was a holder in due course as it acquired the promissory note through a proper endorsement, before it was overdue, in good faith and for value, and without knowledge of any issues. Therefore, Salas could not use defenses from the original sale against Fil

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SALAS VS. CA (G.R. No.

    76788 January 22, 1990)

    FACTS: Juanita Salas (Petitioner) bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales
    Corporation (VMS) as evidenced by a promissory note. This note was subsequently endorsed to
    Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation (private respondent) which financed the purchase.
    Petitioner defaulted in her installments allegedly due to a discrepancy in the engine and chassis
    numbers of the vehicle delivered to her and those indicated in the sales invoice, certificate of
    registration and deed of chattel mortgage, which fact she discovered when the vehicle figured
    in an accident. This failure to pay prompted private respondent to initiate an action for a sum of
    money against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court.

    ISSUE: WON private respondent is a holder in due course?

    HELD: YES. The Promissory Note was negotiated by indorsement in writing on the instrument
    itself payable to the Order of Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation and it is an indorsement
    of the entire instrument. Under the circumstances, there appears to be no question that
    Filinvest is a holder in due course, having taken the instrument under the following conditions:
    [a] it is complete and regular upon its face; [b] it became the holder thereof before it was
    overdue, and without notice that it had previously been dishonored; [c] it took the same in
    good faith and for value; and [d] when it was negotiated to Filinvest, the latter had no notice of
    any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of VMS Corporation. Accordingly,
    respondent corporation holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and
    free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of
    the instrument for the full amount thereof. This being so, petitioner cannot set up against
    respondent the defense of nullity of the contract of sale between her and VMS.

    You might also like