8/12/2019 Notes Chapter I
3/5
CHAPTER I
ADDITIONAL CASES
PACHECO V CA
"pouses Pacheco are engaged in construction business
!hey made the *st loan from 9rs 0icencio for P *D,DDD
Instead of merely re7uiring a note of indebtedness, 9r
0icencio ased Pachecos to issue undated chec E *D*@%A4as
evidence of the loan, which will not be presented to the
ban
Pachecos informed 0icencios that their ban didnFt have
funds. 9rs 0icencio insisted that the chec was only
aformality
0irginia Pacheco issued on 9ay *@, *GHG an undated chec
for *D, she only received G bec the interest was
alreadydeducted. !he husband also signed the chec.
?une *GHG, 0irginia obtained another loan from 9rs0icencio for
%D, interest was deducted and so was the
previous loan. "he received only 3%
With the payment of the previous debt, 0irginia ased for
the return of the *st chec E*D*@%A4 but it was never
returned
=or the new loan, 0irginia was re7uired to issue 3 more
checs for the %D loan4, she was assured by 9rs 0icenciothat the
checs will not be presented. "o 0irginia issued 3undated checs Es
*D*@H3, *D*@H5 and *D*@H%4. /usbandalso signed the chec
0irginia obtained - more loans and again she issued -
checs with the same assurance only as evidence ofindebtedness in
lieu of PN4
A checs were given total H%4 but the total loan is @% and
Pachecos were able to pay AD, leaving *% balance
Pachecos were not able to pay the balance despite demands
9r and 9rs 0icencio went to Pachecos and persuaded
0irginia to place the date &ug *GG- on - checs
0irginia reiterated that their account with ;$($ has been
closed since *GHG. 0icencios insisted
Pacheco were surpised to receive a demand letter since the
checs were dishonoured
9r 0icencio with whom petitioners never had anytransaction4
filed - info for #stafa. It was amended to allegedthat through
fraud and in payment of a diamond ring,Pachecos issued the
checs
;!$) ;
8/12/2019 Notes Chapter I
4/5
CHAPTER I
"ec *-) a negotiable instrument is not rendered invalid by
reason that it is antedated
$hecs must be presented within a reasonable time from
issue. It has been more than 3 years since checs were issued
A checs were given by Pachecos, why were only - encashed
PachecoFs though are not without liability. they should pay
*% interest
HELD: PACHECO( AC4ITTED OF ESTAFA BT
ORDERED TO PAY
SPOSES EVANGELISTA V MERCATOR
#vangelistas filed a complaint for annulment of title vs
9ercator, "ala+ar, :amecs ;ealty and ;12
!hey claim to won % parcels of land contained in a ;#9
executed by them and #mbassy =arms #vangelistas alleged that
they signed the ;#9 ifo of
9ercator only as officer of #mbassy =arms
"ince the mortgage was without consideration as to them ,
since they didnFt received the proceeds of the loan, the ;#9is
void. #vangelistas also assailed the validity of theforeclosure
proceedings conducted by 9ercator, then thesubse7uent sale to
"ala+ar and the transfer to lamecs
9ercator admitted that the #vangelistas were the owners of
the % parcels but contends that in *GH-, #vangelistasexecuted
;#9 in their favor. "pouses signed in the PN asco8maers and they
also executed a $ontinuing "uretyship&greement and the PNs for
restructuring the notes. spousesare jointly and severally liable
with #mbassy. bec of theirfailure to pay, foreclosure and
subse7uent sale and transferare valid
"ala+ar and :amecs asserted that they are innocent
purchasers for value and in good faith. (oth respondentsliewise
assailed the long silence and inaction by petitionersas it was only
after a lapse of almost ten *D4 years from theforeclosure of the
property and the subse7uent sales that they
made their claim. !hus, "ala+ar and :amecs averred
thatpetitioners are in estoppel and guilty of laches.
&fter pre8trial 9ercator moved for summary judgment bec
there is no factual issue to be litigated. #vangelista
admittedthe PNs, continuing suretyship agreement and subse7uentPNs,
hence there is no genuine issue regarding their liability
;!$) 6ranted motion on summary judgment and ruled ifo
9ercator
spouses are solidarily liable
9; denied
$&) !he fact that they signed the subject promissory notes
in their4
personal capacities a!' as officers of the said debtor
corporation ismanifest on the very face of the said documents of
indebtedness
#ven assuming ar3e!'$that they did not, the appellants
lose sight of the fact that third persons who are not parties
toa loan may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging theirown
property
In constituting a mortgage over their own property in order
to secure the purported corporate debt of #mbassy =arms,Inc.,
the appellants undeniably assumed the personality of
persons interested in the fulfillment of the principalobligation
who, to save the subject realities from foreclosureand with a view
towards being subrogated to the rights of thecreditor, were free to
discharge the same by payment
PetitionersF Bprocrastination for about nine G4 years is
difficult to understand. 1n so flimsy a ground as lac
ofconsideration, w4e may even venture to say that thecomplaint was
not worth the time of the courts.C
"$) $& &==I;9#2
"ummary judgment proper
!he provisions of the instruments reflect solidary liability
!here was nothing ambiguous about the instruments
Page 4of 5
