SUPAN, CYRELL D.

NEGOLAW TTH 4:30- 6:00

ASSIGNMENT

13 MARCH 2020

I. Phil. Educational Company Inc. vs Mauricio Soriano

1. FACTS

On April 18, 1958, Enrique Montinola sought t o purchase 10 money orders from
the Manila Post Office of P200 each payable to E.P. Motinola, He offered to pay using his
private checks which were not allowed as a mode of payment, so the teller advised him
to go to the Chief of the money order division, but instead Montinola managed to go
out with 1o money orders without paying.on the same date upon the discovery of the
disappearance of the money orders, an urgent message was sent to all post masters and
on the next day on bank institution instructing them not to pay the money orders that
are lost. On April 23, 1958 one of the money orders was received by PECO as part of
their sales receipt and deposited it to the Bank of America on the next day. On Sept 27,
1961, Mauricio Soriano, Chief of Money order of Manila Post Office, notified the Bank of
America that the money order was found irregularly issued; the amount was deducted
from the banks clearing account. For their part, the Bank of America debited the
appellants account and advice them by means of debit memo.

2. DECISIONS

A. Lower Court

On Nov 17, 1962 The Municipal Court of Manila rendered its judgment in favor
of PECO, ordering Soriano to countermand the notice given to Bank of America or pay
PECO the P200 with 8 ½ % interest rate per annum.

B. Appellate Court

The case was appealed at the Court of First Instance Manila, and the appealed
decision f dismissing the complaint with cost was rendered.

C. Supreme Court

The appealed decision being in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed
with costs. The Appelants main issue is that the Postal Money order is a negotiable
instrument that it shouldn’t be in any way affected by the letter dated Oct 26, 1948
addressed to all banks. Our postal statutes were patterned after statutes in force in the
United States. For this reason, ours are generally construed in accordance with the
 construction given in the United States to their postal statutes. Some of the restrictions
imposed upon money orders by postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the
character of negotiable instruments. 

3. PERSONAL REFLECTION

Postal Money orders are not considered a negotiable instrument due to some
restrictions imposed by postal law and regulations that are inconsistent with the
character of negotiable instrument. For me, PECO shouldn’t suffer and be reimbursed
with their money, they shoudn’t solely sue the Manila Post Office, they should also
demand payment from the Bank of America because of accepting the money order
provided that an email was sent to them instructing not to acknowledge those. Bank of
America should b penalized together with the Manila Post Office because of their
negligence.

II. Eulalio Belisario (Plaintiff) vs. Paz Natividad Viuda De Zulueta (Defendant)

1. FACTS
Eulalio Belisario sold the lands (CT Nos. 3357 and 3358) absolutely and without
reservation to Paz Natividad Viuda De Zulueta for P37,000, which was duly paid, and
the agreement on the part of the grantee to assume an indebtedness secured by a
lien for P4,500, which was likewise duly paid. The deed recites that the sale is
absolute and in perpetuity and the grantor warrants to defend the title. The
defendant executed and delivered in favor of the plaintiff , after reciting that the
defendant is the absolute owner of the lands referred to, granted the plaintiff an
option to repurchase the lands on or before the end of May, 1931, for the sum of
P37,000.The deed bears the date of April 29, 1927.
On the 28th of May, 1931, the plaintiff appeared at the house of the defendant
and offered to exercise his option of repurchase by tendering to the defendant a
check in the sum of P37, 000, drawn by Rosendo Santiago against his account in the
Peoples Bank and Trust Company. The books of the bank disclosed that at the time
said check was tendered to the defendant the drawer thereof had on deposit in the
said bank subject to check the sum of P5.85.

2. DECISIONS
A. Lower Court
The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija is in favor of the defendant.
B. Appellate Court
Finding no merit in the appeal, the judgment of the court below is affirmed
with costs against the Appellant.

C. Supreme Court

3. PERSONAL REFLECTION
 The Appellant court’s decision which is in favor of the defendant, for me
is lawful. The fact that the appellant pays a check that he is not the drawer is
unsafe t the part of the defendant. How would the defendant know that the said
check has enough money for the debt? For me the defendant is just doing as a
wise person would do to protect herself from any fraud that might happen. A
check also does not meet the requirements of the Philippines Law to be
considered a legal tender, it is up to the defendant if she would accept the
payment or not.

Section 63 of Republic Act No. 265, as amended (Central Bank Act) which
provides:

Sec. 63. Legal character — Checks representing deposit money do not have legal
tender power and their acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and
private, is at the option of the creditor: Provided, however, that a check which
has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent
to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited
to his account.