Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
indorsers are genuine, warranty not extending only to holders in due course. One who purchases a
check or draft is bound to satisfy himself that the paper is genuine and that by indorsing it or presenting
it for payment or putting it into circulation before presentation he impliedly asserts that he has
performed his duty and the drawee who has paid the forged check, without actual negligence on his
part, may recover the money paid from such negligent purchasers. In such cases the recovery is
permitted because although the drawee was in a way negligent in failing to detect the forgery, yet if the
encasher of the check had performed his duty, the forgery would in all probability, have been detected
and the fraud defeated. The reason for allowing the drawee bank to recover from the encasher is that
"Every one with even the least experience in business knows that no business man would accept a check
in exchange for money or goods unless he is satisfied that the check is genuine. He accepts it only
because he has proof that it is genuine, or because he has sufficient confidence in the honesty and
financial responsibility of the person who vouches for it. If he is deceived he has suffered a loss of his
cash or goods through his own mistake. His own credulity or recklessness, or misplaced confidence was
the sole cause of the loss. Why should he be permitted to shift the loss due to his own fault in assuming
the risk, upon the drawee, simply because of the accidental circumstance that the drawee afterwards
failed to detect the forgery when the check was presented?" Herein, Ebrada, upon receiving the check in
question from Adelaida Dominguez, was duty-bound to ascertain whether the check in question was
genuine before presenting it to Republic Bank for payment. Her failure to do so makes her liable for the
loss and the Republic Bank may recover from her the money she received for the check. Had she
performed the duty of ascertaining the genuineness of the check, in all probability the forgery would
have been detected and the fraud defeated. As held in the Great Eastern Life Insurance Company case,
"Where a check is drawn payable to the order of one person and is presented to a bank by another and
purports upon its face to have been duly indorsed by the payee of the check, it is the duty of the bank to
know that the check was duly indorsed by the original payee, and where the Bank pays the amount of
the check to a third person, who has forged the signature of the payee, the loss falls upon the bank who
cashed the check, and its only remedy is against the person to whom it paid the money." Hence, the
Republic Bank should suffer the loss when it paid the amount of the check in question to Ebrada, but it
has the remedy to recover from the latter the amount it paid to her. Although Ebrada to whom the
Republic Bank paid the check was not proven to be the author of the supposed forgery, yet as last
indorser of the check, she has warranted that she has good title to it even if in fact she did not have it
because thepayee of the check was already dead 11 years before the check was issued. The fact that
immediately after receiving the cash proceeds of the check in question in the amount of P1,246.08 from
the Republic Bank,Ebrada immediately turned over said amount to Dominguez who in turn handed the
amount to Tinio on the same date would not exempt her from liability because by doing so, she acted as
an accommodation party in the check for which she is also liable under Section 29 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law.
of P40,000.00) given by Valencia and Pearroyo in payment of the full purchase price of the subject lot.
He maintained that what Valencia and Pearroyo had actually paid was only the amount of P5,000.00 (in
cash) as earnest money. The Reyes spouses, likewise, appealed the above decision. However, their
appeal was dismissed because of failure to file their appellants' brief. On 27 January 1992, the Court of
Appeals rendered a decision, affirming with modification the trial court's decision, by ordering Papa to
deliver to Valencia and Pearroyo the owner's duplicate of TCT 28993 of Angela M. Butte and the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lot in question or, if the owner's duplicate certificate cannot
be produced, to authorize the Register of Deeds to cancel it and issue a certificate of title in the name of
Pearroyo; withh costs against Papa. Papa filed the petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether the alleged sale of the subject property had been consummated, on the presumption
that the check in the amount of P40,000 was encashed.
Held: Valencia and Pearroyo had given Papa the amounts of P5,000.00 in cash on 24 May 1973, and
P40,000.00 in check on 15 June 1973, in payment of the purchase price of the subject lot. Papa himself
admits having received said amounts, and having issued receipts therefor. Papa's assertion that he never
encashed the aforesaid check is not substantiated and is at odds with his statement in his answer that
"he can no longer recall the transaction which is supposed to have happened 10 years ago." After more
than 10 years from the payment in part by cash and in part by check, the presumption is that the check
had been encashed. He even waived the presentation of oral evidence. Granting that Papa had never
encashed the check, his failure to do so for more than 10 years undoubtedly resulted in the impairment
of the check through his unreasonable and unexplained delay. While it is true that the delivery of a
check produces the effect of payment only when it is cashed, pursuant to Article 1249 of the Civil Code,
the rule is otherwise if the debtor is prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment.
The acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for payment, and if he
from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence, it will be held to operate as actual
payment of the debt or obligation for which it was given. It has, likewise, been held that if no
presentment is made at all, the drawer cannot be held liable irrespective of loss or injury unless
presentment is otherwise excused.This is in harmony with Article 1249 of the Civil Code under which
payment by way of check or other negotiable instrument is conditioned on its being cashed, except
when through the fault of the creditor, the instrument is impaired. The payee of a check would be a
creditor under this provision and if its non-payment is caused by his negligence, payment will be
deemed effected and the obligation for which the check was given as conditional payment will be
discharged. Considering that Valencia and Pearroyo had fulfilled their part of the contract of sale by
delivering the payment of the purchase price, they, therefore, had the right to compel Papa to deliver to
them the owner's duplicate of TCT 28993 of Angela M. Butte and the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the lot in question.