Here, the delivery thereof only as security for the purchases of Angel de la Cruz (and we even disregard the fact that the amount involved was not disclosed) could at the most constitute petitioner only as a holder for value by reason of his lien. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof, and a holder may be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof, In the present case, however, there was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in favor of petitioner in which situation, for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have sufficed. Petitioner’s insistence that the CTDs were negotiated to it begs the question. NEGOTIATION, DEFINED HOLDER, DEFINED IN CASE AT BAR, DELIVERY OF INSTRUMENT CONSTITUTED THE TRANSFEREE A MERE HOLDER FOR VALUE BY REASON OF HIS LIEN. What the parties meant must be determined by what they said.ģ. The duty of the court in such case is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used. While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstances in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of the parties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead. In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. On this score, the accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. DETERMINATION OF NEGOTIABILITY OR NON-NEGOTIABILITY OF INSTRUMENT RULES. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment.Ģ. And who, according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. Contrary to what respondent court held, the CTDs are negotiable instruments. Tiangco, Security Bank’s Branch Manager way back in 1982, testified in open court that the depositor referred to in the CTDs is no other than Mr. The parties’ bone of contention is with regard to requisite (d) set forth above. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an instrument to become negotiable, viz:" (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty." The CTDs in question undoubtedly meet the requirements of the law for negotiability. If this data is unavailable or inaccurate and you own or represent this business, click here for more information on how you may be able to correct it.1.ĜOMMERCIAL LAW NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR NEGOTIABILITY CERTIFICATE OF TIME DEPOSIT AS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT CASE AT BAR. VIEW ADDITIONAL DATA Select from over 115 networks below to view available data about this business.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |