Week 14 Nego
Week 14 Nego
Week 14 Nego
Week
14
1.
Siy
Bong
Bieng
v.
HSBC
Jed
Emergency:
Ranft
purchased
hemp
and
was
given
a
warehouse
receipt
by
BIENG.
RANFT
HOWEVER
HAS
NOT
PAID
YET
but
BIENG
still
sent
the
receipts
(FATAL
MOVE).
On
the
same
day,
Ranft
died
and
thereafter,
BIENG
wanted
the
receipt
back
or
the
purchase
price
however
they
found
out
Ranft
had
already
pledged
the
same
to
HSBC.
RTC
ruled
in
favor
of
BIENG.
SC
reversed:
if
owner
of
the
goods
permit
another
to
have
the
possession
or
custody
of
negotiable
warehouse
receipts
running
to
the
order
of
the
latter,
or
to
bearer,
it
is
a
representation
of
title
upon
which
bona
fide
purchasers
for
value
are
entitled
to
rely,
despite
breaches
of
trust
or
violations
of
agreement
on
the
part
of
the
apparent
owner.
BIENG
ESTOPPED:
the
plaintiff
had
voluntarily
clothed
Ranft
with
all
the
attributes
of
ownership
and
upon
which
the
defendant
bank
relied.
Facts:
-Initial
action
in
CFI
for
sum
of
31,645,
the
value
of
464
bales
of
hemp
deposited
in
certain
bonded
warehouses
as
evidenced
by
quedans
(warehouse
receipts).
-They
were
delivered
to
HSBC
as
pledge
for
Otto
Ranfts
preexisting
debt.
-June
25,
1926:
Ranft
called
the
office
to
purchase
hemp
(abaca).
The
receipt
was
delivered
with
the
understanding
that
BIENG
would
be
paid
a
day
or
two
after
deliver
as
was
the
same
set
up
as
previous
transactions.
-That
night,
on
the
same
day
the
warehouse
receipts
were
pledged
by
Ranft.
ALSO
ON
THAT
NIGHT!!!
He
died.
(funny
right?
He
died
suddenly
in
their
house
in
Manila)
-BIENG
immediately
asked
for
the
return
of
the
quedans
or
their
value
but
found
out
that
they
were
already
pledged.
-BIENG
filed
a
claim
for
31,645
in
the
intestate
proceedings
of
Ranft
which
was
allowed
by
the
CFI.
-In
the
meantime,
BIENG
also
demanded
from
HSBC
for
the
return
of
the
quedans
or
their
value
but
was
refused
stating
that
they
are
holders
in
due
course.
-Complaint
was
filed
BIENG
stated
they
allegedly
attempted
to
sell
to
Ranft
for
cash
but
Rnaft
did
not
fulfill
he
conditions
of
the
sale.
(Initial
statement
was
they
sold
it
but
then
they
changed
it
ti
attempted
to
sell)
-TRIAL
COURT:
ruled
in
favor
of
BIENG
on
the
ground
that
HSBC
could
not
have
been
in
good
faith
because
according
to
the
witness,
a
certain
Thiele,
the
bank,
based
on
the
circumstance
knew
that
they
werent
paid
yet.
Also,
the
belief
that
Ranft
was
the
owner
was
contrary
to
the
facts
proven.
Issue:
W/N
BIENG
can
recover
the
quedans
Held:
HELLZ
TO
THE
NO
We
regret
that
the
plaintiff
in
this
case
has
suffered
the
loss
of
the
quedans,
but
as
far
as
we
can
see,
there
is
now
no
remedy
available
to
the
plaintiff.
The
bank
is
not
responsible
for
the
loss;
the
negotiable
quedans
were
duly
negotiated
to
the
bank
and
as
far
as
the
record
shows,
there
has
been
no
fraud
on
the
part
of
the
defendant.
Ratio:
-
First,
that
the
quedans
in
question
were
negotiable
in
form;
-Second,
that
they
were
pledge
by
Otto
Ranft
to
the
defendant
bank
to
secure
the
payment
of
his
preexisting
debts
to
said
bank
(paragraph
3
of
the
Stipulation
of
Facts);
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
-Third,
that
such
of
the
quedans
as
were
issued
in
the
name
of
the
plaintiff
were
duly
endorsed
in
blank
by
the
plaintiff
and
by
Otto
Ranft
-Fourth,
that
the
two
remaining
quedans
which
were
duly
endorsed
in
blank
by
him.
-Evidence
shows
that
the
quedans
were
for
security
of
622,753
debt,
no
evidence
that
bank
was
bound/promised
to
pay
back
amount
of
quedans
-Quedans
were
negotiable
in
form
and
duly
endorsed
in
blank
by
the
plaintiff
and
by
Otto
Ranft,
it
follows
that
on
the
delivery
of
the
qeudans
to
the
bank
they
were
no
longer
the
property
of
the
indorser
unless
he
liquidated
his
debt
with
the
bank.
-On
petitioners
contention
that
bank
should
have
ascertained
the
authority
of
Ranft
to
negotiate:
-The
bank
had
perfect
right
to
act
under
section
47,
38
and
40
of
Warehouse
Receipts
Act:
SEC.
47.
When
negotiation
not
impaired
by
fraud,
mistake,
or
duress.
The
validity
of
the
negotiation
of
a
receipt
is
not
impaired
by
the
fact
that
such
negotiation
was
a
breach
of
duty
on
the
part
of
the
person
making
the
negotiation,
or
by
the
fact
that
the
owner
of
the
receipt
was
induced
by
fraud,
mistake,
or
duress
to
intrust
the
possession
or
custody
of
the
receipt
was
negotiated,
or
a
person
to
whom
the
receipt
was
subsequent
negotiated,
paid
value
therefor,
without
notice
of
the
breach
of
duty,
or
fraud,
mistake,
or
duress.
SEC.
38.
Negotiation
of
negotiable
receipts
by
indorsement.
A
negotiable
receipt
may
be
negotiated
by
the
indorsement
of
the
person
to
whose
order
the
goods
are,
by
the
terms
of
the
receipt,
deliverable.
Such
indorsement
may
be
in
blank,
to
bearer
or
to
a
specified
person.
.
.
.
Subsequent
negotiation
may
be
made
in
like
manner.
SEC.
40.
Who
may
negotiate
a
receipt.
A
negotiable
receipt
may
be
negotiated:
(a)
By
the
owner
thereof,
or
(b)
By
any
person
to
whom
the
possession
or
custody
of
the
receipt
has
been
entrusted
by
the
owner,
if,
by
the
terms
of
the
receipt,
the
warehouseman
undertakes
to
deliver
the
goods
to
the
order
of
the
person
to
whom
the
possession
or
custody
of
the
receipt
has
been
entrusted,
or
if
at
the
time
of
such
entrusting
the
receipt
is
in
such
form
that
it
may
be
negotiated
by
delivery.
-Bank
is
entitled
to
such
rights
under
sec.
41:
SEC.
41.
Rights
of
person
to
whom
a
receipt
has
been
negotiated.
A
person
to
whom
a
negotiable
receipt
has
been
duly
negotiated
acquires
thereby:
(a) Such
title
to
the
goods
as
the
person
negotiating
the
receipt
to
him
had
or
had
ability
to
convey
to
a
purchaser
in
good
faith
for
value,
and
also
such
title
to
the
goods
as
the
depositor
of
person
to
whose
order
the
goods
were
to
be
delivered
by
the
terms
of
the
receipt
had
or
had
ability
to
convey
to
a
purchaser
in
good
faith
for
value,
and.
.
.
.
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
-Citing
jurisprudence:
By
sec.
47,
the
negotiation
of
the
receipt
to
a
purchaser
for
value
without
notice
is
not
impaired
by
the
fact
that
it
is
a
breach
of
duty,
or
that
the
owner
of
the
receipt
was
induced
"by
fraud,
mistake,
or
duress"
to
intrust
the
receipt
to
the
person
who
negotiated
it.
-Under
sec.
41,
one
to
whom
the
negotiable
receipt
has
been
duly
negotiated
acquires
such
title
to
the
goods
as
the
person
negotiating
the
receipt
to
him,
or
the
depositor
or
person
whose
order
the
goods
were
delivered
by
the
terms
of
the
receipt,
either
had
or
"had
ability
to
convey
to
a
purchaser
in
good
faith
for
value."
-WHAT
PROVISIONS
ARE
SAYING:
if
owner
of
the
goods
permit
another
to
have
the
possession
or
custody
of
negotiable
warehouse
receipts
running
to
the
order
of
the
latter,
or
to
bearer,
it
is
a
representation
of
title
upon
which
bona
fide
purchasers
for
value
are
entitled
to
rely,
despite
breaches
of
trust
or
violations
of
agreement
on
the
part
of
the
apparent
owner.
-BIENG
ESTOPPED:
the
plaintiff
had
voluntarily
clothed
Ranft
with
all
the
attributes
of
ownership
and
upon
which
the
defendant
bank
relied.
In
such
case
we
think
the
principles
which
underlie
equitable
estoppel
place
the
loss
upon
him
whose
misplaced
confidence
has
made
the
wrong
possible.
2.
Martinez
v.
PNB
-
Jech
Emergency
Recit:
RODRIGUEZ
estate
was
indebted
to
PNB
in
the
amount
of
22K,
representing
its
crop
loan
MARTINEZ,
administratrix,
endorsed
and
delivered
two
quedans
to
PNB,
which
covered
2,198.11
piculs
sugar
o The
quedans
were
issued
by
BOGO-MEDELLIN
MILLING,
the
warehouse
where
the
sugar
was
stored
Because
of
the
war,
the
sugar
covered
by
the
quedans
were
lost
MARTINEZ
contends
that
had
she
been
allowed
to
sell
the
sugar,
to
which
PNB
refused,
the
estate
could
have
realized
the
amount
of
over
54K
MARTINEZ
sued
for
the
expected
sales
price,
since
it
had
already
paid
the
loan
amount
Issue:
Is
PNB
liable?
SC
held
that
MARTINEZ
theory
is
stupid
and
confusing
she
contends
that
the
endorsement
of
the
quedan
transferred
ownership
over
the
sugar
to
PNB,
but,
at
the
same
time,
she
wants
to
recover
the
value
of
the
sugar
o In
any
case,
the
transfer
of
the
quedans
in
the
case
at
bar
is
not
by
sale,
but
merely
as
security
by
way
of
pledge
or
mortgage.
Thus,
ownership
was
not
transferred
and
PNB
was
only
given
a
right
to
sell
the
goods
to
apply
it
to
the
outstanding
debt.
o Thus,
the
loss
should
be
borne
by
the
owner
ESTATE
Dissent
of
Paras:
o PNB
is
liable
for
the
22K,
not
for
the
54K
o Endorsement
of
the
quedans
transferred
ownership
to
PNB,
pursuant
to
Section
41
of
the
Warehouse
Receipts
Law
o But
since
the
quedans
were
only
given
as
security,
the
case
is
similar
to
that
of
sale
with
right
to
repurchase
If
the
seller
successfully
repurchases
(to
get
the
property
back),
but
the
thing
is
lost
before
actual
delivery,
then
the
buyer
(who
initially
bought
the
property)
is
bound
to
deliver
the
purchase
price;
not
its
value
-Facts:
February
1942:
the
the
estate
of
RODRIGUEZ
was
indebted
to
the
PNB
in
the
amount
of
P22,128.44,
which
represented
the
balance
of
the
CROP
LOAN
obtained
by
the
estate
upon
its
1941-1942
SUGAR
CANE
CROP
MARTINEZ,
late
administratrix
of
the
RODRIGUEZ
estate,
endorsed
and
delivered
to
PNB
two
(2)
QUEDANS
issued
by
the
BOGO-MEDELLIN
MILLING
CO.,
where
the
sugar
was
stored
o MARTINEZ:
The
quedans
covered
2,198.11
piculs
o PNB:
Only
1
quedan
was
delivered,
which
covered
1,071.04
piculs
During
the
last
Pacific
war,
the
sugar
covered
by
the
quedans
was
lost
while
in
the
warehouse
of
BOGO
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
According
to
MARTINEZ,
she
asked
PNB
to
release
the
sugar
so
that
it
could
be
sold
at
a
good
price
(P25
per
picul)
to
avoid
possible
loss
at
the
hands
of
the
Japanese
invasion
o PNB
refused
and,
as
a
result,
P54,952.75,
representing
the
value
of
said
sugar
was
lost
MARTINEZ
filed
suit
against
PNB
to
recover
the
amount
CFI:
Dismissed
the
complaint
o The
transfer
of
the
quedans
representing
the
sugar
to
PNB
did
not
transfer
ownership
over
the
goods
o The
loss
of
the
sugar
should
still
be
borne
by
the
owner-estate
Present
administrator
MARTINEZ
appealed
SC:
CFI
ruling
affirmed
-Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
delivery
(by
MARTINEZ)
of
the
quedans
in
question
transferred
ownership
(to
PNB)
over
the
sugar
covered
thereby?
-Held:
The
transaction
was
not
a
sale
because
consideration
was
not
present
PNB,
by
its
charter
is,
not
authorized
to
engage
in
the
business
of
buying
and
selling
sugar.
o PNB
only
accepts
sugar
as
security
for
payment
of
its
crop
loans
and
later,
it
sells
said
sugar
for
planters,
or
the
planters
find
buyers
and
direct
them
to
the
bank.
[BOOM]
MARTINEZ
contends
that
the
endorsement
and
delivery
of
the
quedans
to
the
bank
transferred
the
ownership
of
the
sugar
to
said
bank
so
that
as
owner,
the
bank
should
suffer
the
loss
of
the
sugar
o We
take
it
that
by
endorsing
the
quedan,
ESTATE
was
supposed
to
have
sold
the
sugar
to
PNB
for
the
amount
of
the
outstanding
loan
and
the
interest
then
accrued.
o That
would
mean
that
ESTATEs
account
with
the
bank
has
been
entirely
liquidated
and
their
contractual
relations
ended,
the
bank,
suffering
the
loss
of
the
amount
of
the
loan
and
interest.
o But
MARTINEZ,
in
the
next
breath
contends
that
had
the
bank
released
the
sugar
in
February
1942,
ESTATE
could
have
sold
it
for
P54,952.75,
from
which
the
amount
of
the
loan
and
interest
could
have
been
deducted,
the
balance
to
have
been
retained
by
the
ESTATE,
and
that
since
the
loan
has
been
entirely
liquidated
in
1948,
then
the
whole
expected
sales
price
of
P54,952.75
should
now
be
paid
by
PNB
[PATAY]
This
second
theory
presupposes
that
despite
the
endorsement
of
the
quedan,
the
estate
still
retained
ownership
of
the
sugar,
a
position
that
runs
counter
to
the
first
theory
of
transfer
of
ownership
to
the
bank.
In
support
of
the
theory
of
transfer
of
ownership
of
the
sugar
to
the
bank
by
virtue
of
the
endorsement
of
the
quedan,
reference
was
made
to
Section
41
of
the
Warehouse
Receipts
Law
o First,
this
claim
is
inconsistent
with
the
very
theory
MARTINEZ
that
the
sugar
far
from
being
sold
to
the
bank
was
merely
given
as
security
for
the
payment
of
the
crop
loan.
o Second,
the
jurisprudence
cited
do
not
directly
apply.
In
those
cases,
this
Court
held
that
for
purposes
of
facilitating
commercial
transaction,
the
endorsee
or
transferee
of
a
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan
should
be
regarded
as
the
owner
of
the
goods
covered
by
it.
As
regards
the
endorser
or
transferor,
even
if
he
were
the
owner
of
the
goods,
he
may
not
take
possession
and
dispose
of
the
goods
without
the
consent
of
the
endorsee
or
transferee
of
the
quedan
or
warehouse
receipt
o An
in
some
cases,
the
endorsee
may
sell
the
goods
and
apply
the
proceeds
to
the
payment
of
the
debt
As
regards
third
persons,
the
holder
of
a
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan
is
considered
the
owner
of
the
goods
covered
by
it.
o It
is
obvious
that
where
the
transaction
involved
in
the
transfer
of
a
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan
is
not
a
sale
but
pledge
or
security,
the
transferee
or
endorsee
does
not
become
the
owner
of
the
goods,
but
that
he
may
only
have
the
property
sold
and
then
satisfy
the
obligation
from
the
proceeds
of
the
sale.
From
all
this,
it
is
clear
that
at
the
time
the
sugar
in
question
was
lost
sometime
during
the
war,
RODRIGUEZ
estate
was
still
the
owner
thereof.
o Moreover,
PNB
did
offer
the
sugar
for
sale,
but
there
were
no
buyers.
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
[DOCTRINE]
Where
a
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan
is
transferred
or
endorsed
to
a
creditor
only
to
secure
the
payment
of
a
loan
or
debt,
the
transferee
or
endorsee
does
not
automatically
become
the
owner
of
the
goods
covered
by
the
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan,
o But
he
merely
retains
the
right
to
keep
and
with
the
consent
of
the
owner
to
sell
them
so
as
to
satisfy
the
obligation
from
the
proceeds
of
the
sale
o In
such
cases,
the
transaction
involved
is
not
a
sale
but
only
a
mortgage
or
pledge;
and
o If
the
property
covered
by
the
quedans
or
warehouse
receipts
is
lost
without
the
fault
or
negligence
of
the
mortgagee
or
pledgee
or
the
transferee
or
endorsee
of
the
warehouse
receipt
or
quedan,
then
said
goods
are
to
be
regarded
as
lost
on
account
of
the
real
owner
mortgagor
or
pledgor.
-Dissent
by
Paras:
Section
41
of
Act
No.
2137,
otherwise
known
as
the
Warehouse
Receipts
Law;
"SEC.
41.
Rights
of
person
to
whom
a
receipt
has
been
negotiated.
A
person
to
whom
a
negotiable
receipt
has
been
duly
negotiated
acquires
thereby:
"(a)
Such
title
to
the
goods
as
the
person
negotiating
the
receipt
to
him
had
or
had
ability
to
convey
to
a
purchaser
in
good
faith
for
value,
and
also
such
title
to
the
goods
as
the
depositor
or
person
to
whose
order
the
goods
were
to
be
delivered
by
the
terms
of
the
receipt
had
or
had
ability
to
convey
to
a
purchaser
in
good
faith
for
value,
and.
"(b)
The
direct
obligation
of
the
warehouseman
to
hold
possession
of
the
goods
for
him
according
to
the
terms
of
the
receipt
as
fully
as
if
the
warehouseman
had
contracted
directly
with
him."
A
person
to
whom
a
negotiable
receipt
has
been
duly
negotiated
acquires
(1)
title
to
the
goods
covered
by
the
receipt,
as
well
as
(2)
possession
of
the
goods
through
the
warehouseman,
as
if
the
latter
had
contracted
directly
with
the
person
to
whom
the
negotiable
receipt
has
been
duly
negotiated.
o Consequently,
PNB,
to
whom
the
two
quedans
in
question
have
been
indorsed
and
delivered,
thereby
acquired
the
ownership
of
the
sugar
covered
by
said
quedans,
with
the
logical
result
that
the
loss
of
the
article
should
be
borne
by
it.
o The
fact
that
the
quedans
were
indorsed
and
delivered
as
a
security
for
the
payment
of
an
indebtedness
did
not
prevent
the
bank
from
acquiring
ownership,
since
the
only
effect
of
the
transfer
was
that
the
debtor
could
reacquire
said
ownership
upon
payment
of
his
obligation.
o Section
41
of
Act
No.
2137
had
already
been
construed
by
this
court
in
the
sense
that
ownership
passes
to
the
indorsee,
although
the
quedans
are
indorsed
and
delivered
merely
as
a
security.
(Sy
Cong
Bieng
vs.
Hongkong
&
Shanghai
Bank,
56
Phil.,
498;
Philippine
Trust
Co.
vs.
Philippine
National
Bank,
42
Phil.,
438;
Bank
of
the
Philippine
Islands
vs.
Herridge,
47
Phil.,
57;
Roman
vs.
Asia
Banking
Corporation,
46
Phil.,
405.)
The
relation
of
a
pledgor
of
a
warehouse
receipt,
duly
indorsed
and
delivered
to
the
pledgee,
is
substantially
analogous
to
the
relation
of
a
vendor
and
vendee,
with
right
of
repurchase.
o The
seller
a
retro
actually
transfers
the
ownership
of
the
property
sold
to
the
buyer,
but
the
seller
may
reacquire
said
ownership
upon
payment
of
the
repurchase
price.
If
the
property
sold
a
retro
is
lost
before
being
repurchased,
the
vendee
naturally
has
to
bear
the
loss,
with
the
seller
having
nothing
to
repurchase.
But
if
the
loss
should
occur
after
the
repurchase
price
has
been
paid
but
before
the
property
sold
a
retro
is
actually
reconveyed,
the
buyer
is
bound
to
return
to
the
seller
only
the
repurchase
price
paid,
and
not
the
value
of
the
property.
o Thus,
the
loss
of
the
sugar
should
be
for
the
account
of
the
PNB,
which
should
return
to
the
ESTATE
P22,128.44,
the
amount
of
the
indebtedness
of
the
estate,
which
had
already
been
paid
in
1948,
without
however
being
liable
for
the
difference
between
P54,952.75
(actual
value
of
the
sugar)
and
the
amount
of
said
payment.
3.
Roman
v.
Asia
Banking
Maiti
In
the
matter
of
the
Involuntary
insolvency
of
U.
DE
POLI.
FELISA
ROMAN,
claimant-appellee,
vs.
ASIA
BANKING
CORPORATION,
claimant-appellant.
ER:
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
FACTS:
This
is
an
appeal
from
an
order
entered
by
the
CFI
of
Manila,
the
insolvency
of
Umberto
de
Poli,
and
declaring
the
lien
claimed
by
the
appellee
Felisa
Roman
upon
a
lot
of
leaf
tobacco,
consisting
of
576
bales,
and
found
in
the
possession
of
said
insolvent,
superior
to
that
claimed
by
the
appellant,
the
Asia
Banking
Corporation.
Felisa
Roman
(ROMAN)
claims
the
576
bultos
of
tobacco
(Exhibit
A)
ROMAN
notified
the
said
Asia
Banking
Corporation
(ASIA
BANK)
of
her
contention.
Asia
Banking
Corporation
replied
At
the
time
the
above
entitled
insolvency
proceedings
were
filed,
the
576
bultos
of
tobacco
were
in
possession
of
U.
de
Poli
and
now
are
in
possession
of
the
assignee.
U.
de
Poli,
for
value
received,
issued
a
quedan,
covering
aforesaid
576
bultos
of
tobacco,
to
the
Asia
Banking
Corporation
That
aforesaid
576
bultos
of
tobacco
are
part
and
parcel
of
the
2,777
bultos
purchased
by
U.
de
Poli
from
Felisa
Roman.
The
warehouse
receipt
issued
by
the
warehouse
of
U.
de
Poli
for
576
bales
of
tobacco.
In
the
left
margin
of
the
face
of
the
receipts,
U.
de
Poli
certifies
that
he
is
the
sole
owner
of
the
merchandise
therein
described.
The
receipt
is
endorsed
in
blank
"Umberto
de
Poli;"
it
is
not
marked
"non-negotiable"
or
"not
negotiable
In
Exhibit
A
(which
is
some
kind
of
agreement/contract
between
Roman
and
U
de
Poli),
it
says
that
the
tobacco
should
remain
in
the
warehouse
of
U.
de
Poli
as
a
deposit
until
the
price
was
paid
however,
it
appears
clearly
from
the
language
of
the
exhibit
as
a
whole
that
it
evidences
a
contract
of
sale
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
findings
of
CFI
also
show
that
De
Poli
received
from
Felisa
Roman,
under
this
contract,
2,777
bales
of
tobacco
of
the
total
value
of
P78,815.69,
of
which
he
paid
P15,000
in
cash
and
executed
four
notes
of
P15,953.92
each
for
the
balance
The
sale
having
been
thus
consummated,
the
only
lien
upon
the
tobacco
which
Felisa
Roman
can
claim
is
a
vendor's
lien.
The
order
appealed
from
is
based
upon
the
theory
that
the
tobacco
was
transferred
to
the
Asia
Banking
Corporation
as
security
for
a
loan
and
that
as
the
transfer
neither
fulfilled
the
requirements
of
the
Civil
Code
for
a
pledge
nor
constituted
a
chattel
mortgage
under
Act
No.
1508,
the
vendor's
lien
of
Felisa
Roman
should
be
accorded
preference
over
it.
ISSUE:
WON
the
warehouse
receipt
is
negotiable?
YES.
WON
Roman's
right
over
the
576
bales
of
tobacco
is
superior
to
that
of
Asia
Banking
Corporation?
NO.
HELD:
We
therefore
hold
that
the
warehouse
receipts
in
controversy
was
negotiable
and
that
the
rights
of
the
indorsee
(ASIA
BANK)
thereof,
the
appellant,
are
superior
to
the
vendor's
(ROMAN)
lien
of
the
appellee
and
should
be
given
preference
over
the
latter
Roman's
lien
not
superior
to
Bank
It
is
quite
evident
that
the
court
below
failed
to
take
into
consideration
the
provisions
of
section
49
of
Act
No.
2137
which
reads:
Where
a
negotiable
receipt
has
been
issued
for
goods,
no
seller's
lien
or
right
of
stoppage
in
transitu
shall
defeat
the
rights
of
any
purchaser
for
value
in
good
faith
to
whom
such
receipt
has
been
negotiated,
whether
such
negotiation
be
prior
or
subsequent
to
the
notification
to
the
warehouseman
who
issued
such
receipt
of
the
seller's
claim
to
a
lien
or
right
of
stoppage
in
transitu.
Nor
shall
the
warehouseman
be
obliged
to
deliver
or
justified
in
delivering
the
goods
to
an
unpaid
seller
unless
the
receipt
is
first
surrendered
for
cancellation.
The
term
"purchaser"
as
used
in
the
section
quoted,
includes
mortgagee
and
pledgee.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
provisions,
there
can
be
no
doubt
whatever
that
if
the
warehouse
receipt
in
question
is
negotiable,
the
vendor's
lien
of
Felisa
Roman
cannot
prevail
against
the
rights
of
the
Asia
Banking
Corporation
as
the
indorsee
of
the
receipt.
The
warehouse
receipt
is
negotiable
The
only
question
of
importance
to
be
determined
in
this
case
is,
therefore,
whether
the
receipt
before
us
is
negotiable.
The
matter
is
not
entirely
free
from
doubt.
The
receipt
is
not
perfect:
It
recites
that
the
merchandise
is
deposited
in
the
warehouse
"by
order"
instead
of
"to
order"
or
"subject
to
the
order"
of
the
depositor
and
it
contain
no
other
direct
statement
showing
whether
the
goods
received
are
to
be
delivered
to
the
bearer,
to
a
specified
person,
or
to
a
specified
person
or
his
order.
We
think,
however,
that
it
must
be
considered
a
negotiable
receipt.
A
warehouse
receipt,
like
any
other
document,
must
be
interpreted
according
to
its
evident
intent
and
it
is
quite
obvious
that
the
deposit
evidenced
by
the
receipt
in
this
case
was
intended
to
be
made
subject
to
the
order
of
the
depositor
and
therefore
negotiable.
That
the
words
"by
order"
are
used
instead
of
"to
order"
is
very
evidently
merely
a
clerical
or
grammatical
error.
If
any
intelligent
meaning
is
to
be
attacked
to
the
phrase
"Are
deposited
in
these
stores
by
order
of
Mr.
U.
de
Poli"
(google
translated)
it
must
be
held
to
mean
"Are
deposited
in
these
stores
to
the
order
of
Mr.
U.
de
Poli"
(google
translated)
The
phrase
must
be
construed
to
mean
that
U.
de
Poli
was
the
person
authorized
to
indorse
and
deliver
the
receipts;
any
other
interpretation
would
mean
that
no
one
had
such
power
and
the
clause,
as
well
as
the
entire
receipts,
would
be
rendered
nugatory.
Moreover,
the
indorsement
in
blank
of
the
receipt
in
controversy
together
with
its
delivery
by
U.
de
Poli
to
the
appellant
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
bank
took
place
on
the
very
of
the
issuance
of
the
warehouse
receipt,
thereby
immediately
demonstrating
the
intention
of
U.
de
Poli
and
of
the
appellant
bank,
by
the
employment
of
the
phrase
"by
order
of
Mr.
U
de
Poli"
to
make
the
receipt
negotiable
and
subject
to
the
very
transfer
which
he
then
and
there
made
by
such
endorsement
in
blank
and
delivery
of
the
receipt
to
the
blank.
As
hereinbefore
stated,
the
receipt
was
not
marked
"non-negotiable."
Under
modern
statutes
the
negotiability
of
warehouse
receipts
has
been
enlarged,
the
statutes
having
the
effect
of
making
such
receipts
negotiable
unless
marked
"non-negotiable."
This
section
appears
to
give
any
warehouse
receipt
not
marked
"non-negotiable"
or
"not
negotiable"
practically
the
same
effect
as
a
receipt
which,
by
its
terms,
is
negotiable
provided
the
holder
of
such
unmarked
receipt
acquired
it
for
value
supposing
it
to
be
negotiable,
circumstances
which
admittedly
exist
in
the
present
case.
4.
America
Foreign
Banking
v.
Herridge
Dondon
Emergency
Recitation
(this
should
be
enough,
short
case)
Poli,
a
warehouseman
in
Manila,
had
a
debt
(overdraft
of
Php40,000)
with
American
Bank
and
as
security
he
issued
a
warehouse
receipt
(quedan)
indorsed
in
blank
representing
560
bales
of
Cagayan
tobacco
en
rama
o Tobacco
is
stored
in
the
bodega
of
Calle
Azcarraga
Poli
later
on
became
insolvent
so
his
properties
are
now
administered
by
an
assignee
American
Bank
subsequently
wants
the
assignee
to
deliver
the
tobacco
but
the
latter
refuses
stating
o The
560
bales
are
not
in
his
possession
o That
the
quedan
issued
is
not
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt
for
failure
to
comply
with
Secs2,
4,
5
of
Warehouse
receipt
act
o Poli
only
issued
it
as
collateral
security
2
issues
posed
used
as
basis
for
assailing
the
warehouse
receipt:
o Quedan
stated
560
bales
of
tobacco,
but
the
tobacco
in
the
bodega
of
Calle
Azcarraga
was
only
530
o American
Bank
claims
Cagayan
tobacco
but
the
ones
in
the
bodega
is
Isabela
tobacco
Therefore
the
issue
hinges
on
the
identity
of
the
tobacco
claimed
in
relation
to
what
is
written
in
the
quedan
Issue:
W/N
the
warehouse
receipt
is
valid
despite
the
discrepancies
Yes
valid
W/N
assignee
must
deliver
goods
to
American
Bank
Yes
must
deliver
The
facts
clearly
show
that
the
identity
of
the
tobacco
Calle
Azcarraga
is
the
one
referred
to
in
the
quedan,
despite
the
discrepancy
in
description.
The
evidence
adduced:
o This
lot
of
tobacco
was
the
only
tobacco
in
the
warehouse.
o Poli
admitted
that
it
was
the
tobacco
which
he
transferred
to
the
claimant
bank
that
at
the
time,
he
notified
Molina
(guy
in
charge
of
his
warehouses
then)
to
set
this
tobacco
for
said
security
to
American
Bank
o The
bank
sent
its
subaccountant,
Mr.
Kaintzler,
to
check
the
tobacco,
and
Poli
pointed
this
lot
of
tobacco
to
him
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
Also,
Poli
explained
that
when
he
made
the
quedan,
he
didnt
ask
or
give
importance
to
the
grade
since
regardless
of
whether
it
was
Cagayan
or
Isabela,
he
had
to
deliver
the
tobacco
anyway
SC
accepts
explanation
and
evidence.
Assignee
must
deliver
the
tobacco,
or
if
sold
already,
the
proceeds
less
expenses
to
American
Bank
The
assignee
stands
in
the
shoes
of
the
insolvent,
and,
while
it
is
his
duty
to
protect
the
general
creditors,
he
is
not
in
the
position
of
a
judgment
creditor
with
an
unsatisfied
execution.
The
intention
of
the
parties
to
the
transaction
must
prevail
against
such
a
technical
objection
as
to
the
sufficiency
of
the
description
of
the
tobacco.
FACTS:
U.
de
Poli
(Poli),
then
warehouseman
in
Manila,
had
a
debt
(overdraft
amounting
to
Php40,000)
to
American
Foreign
Banking
Corporation
(American
Bank)
April
28,
1920
-
Poli
issued
warehouse
receipt
No.
A-48
(quedan)
and
endorsed
said
quedan
in
question
(Exhibit
A)
in
blank
and
delivered
it
to
American
Bank
as
security
on
his
overdraft
o Quedan
represented
560
bales
of
tobacco,
particularly
described
a
Cagayan
tabaco
en
rama
with
specified
marks
thereon
o Poli
certified
over
his
signature:
I
certify
that
I
am
the
sole
owner
of
the
merchandise
herein
described
Poli
became
insolvent
and
all
hence
all
his
property,
including
the
warehouses
and
stuff
are
under
the
administration
of
an
assignee.
April
23,
1921
American
Bank
asked
that
the
assignee
be
ordered
to
deliver
the
560
bales
of
leaf
tobacco
called
for
in
said
quedan
upon
surrender
of
the
original
of
the
warehouse
receipt.
Assignee
refused,
contending:
Denied
that
the
560
bales
of
Cagayan
tobacco
listed
in
said
Exhibit
A
are
now
in
his
possession
as
assignee
of
said
insolvent
estate
Denied
that
said
Exhibit
A
constitutes
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt
under
the
law,
for
the
reason
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
provisions
of
sections
2,
4,
or
5
of
the
Warehouse
Receipt
Act;
And
that,
even
assuming
that
said
560
bales
of
leaf
tobacco
were
now
in
his
possession,
he
denies
that
the
claimant
bank
is
the
owner
thereof,
or
has
any
lien
thereon,
or
any
rights
therein,
by
virtue
of
said
receipt;
And
by
his
amended
answer
alleges
that
said
Exhibit
A
was
not
delivered
by
the
insolvent
Poli
to
the
claimant
for
the
purpose
of
transferring
the
ownership
of
the
property
described
therein
to
it,
but
only
as
collateral
security
for
a
pre-existing
indebtedness
by
way
of
overdraft,
for
which
purpose
it
is
under
the
law
invalid
and
wholly
ineffective
as
against
the
general
creditors
of
the
said
insolvent
estate
However,
the
facts
(as
also
admitted
by
Poli
in
his
testimony)
show
contrary
to
defences
of
assignee:
The
authenticity
of
the
quedan
is
admitted,
Poli
testified
that
he
issued
it
to
said
bank
as
security
for
his
said
overdraft
That
the
tobacco
was
in
the
bodega
on
Calle
Azcarraga
when
he
gave
the
quedan
to
the
bank;
That
the
tobacco
had
to
be
stripped
and
booked,
and
for
this
reason
there
might
have
been
a
slight
difference
between
the
quantity
given
in
the
quedan
and
the
quantity
at
present
in
existence
in
the
warehouse
instead
of
560
bales,
only
530
is
present
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
That
he
knows
that
the
tobacco
was
in
the
warehouse
at
the
time
he
became
insolvent,
because
he
had
given
an
order
to
fill
an
order
for
stripped
tobacco,
and
That
the
tobacco
was
taken
from
the
pile
which
he
had
given
in
guaranty
to
American
Bank;
That
Vicente
Molina
was
in
charge
of
the
warehouse,
and
that
he
(De
Poli)
acted
upon
the
data
furnished
to
him
by
Mr.
Molina.
2
problems
posed:
1) American
Bank
claims
560
bales
of
tobacco,
evidence
shows
that
there
were
only
530
bales
of
tobacco.
2) The
quedan
calls
for
'Cagayan
tobacco,'
but
it
was
stipulated
in
this
case
that
the
530
bales
of
tobacco
claimed
by
American
Bank
are
Isabela
tobacco.
The
basis
of
the
contentions
therefore
are
based
on
the
identity
of
the
bales
of
tobacco
subject
of
the
quedan.
Poli
provided
sufficient
explanations/justifications
for
both:
Poli
explained
this
discrepancy
in
description
by
saying
that
he
'had
the
description
of
grade
only
and
made
the
quedan
without
giving
importance
if
it
was
Cagayan
or
Isabela
tobacco;'
That
he
asked
only
for
grade,
and
did
not
ask
whether
it
was
Cagayan
or
Isabela
tobacco,
because
he
had
to
deliver
the
security
no
matter
whether
it
was
Isabela
or
Cagayan
tobacco.
Poli
specifically
ordered
Molina
(guy
in
charge
of
his
warehouses
then)
to
set
aside
the
Isabela
tobacco
for
this
purpose
in
Calle
Azcarraga
at
the
time
he
issued
it
to
American
Bank
The
quedan
in
question
was
issued
by
J.
Magpantay,
who
was
'encargado'
of
all
the
U.
de
Poli
warehouses,
but
he
did
not
have
control
of
the
warehouses,
according
to
Mr.
De
Poli.
Molina
did
not
see
the
quedan
when
it
was
issued,
but
said
that
he
knew
of
the
tobacco
which
Mr.
De
Poli
transferred
to
the
claimant
bank,
because
Mr.
De
Poli
told
him
about
it;
that
it
was
tobacco
from
Isabela
f
or
the
year
1919,
was
stored
in
the
warehouse
on
Calle
Azcarraga,
and
that
there
was
no
other
tobacco
in
the
warehouse
except
the
1919
Isabela
tobacco.
American
Bank
sent
its
subaccountant,
Mr.
Kaintzler,
who
verified
the
tobacco
which
was
pointed
out
by
Poli
to
him
In
December,
1920,
Mr.
Kaintzler,
a
subaccountant
of
the
claimant
bank,
went
to
the
U.
de
Poli
warehouse
on
Calle
Azcarraga
to
have
the
tobacco
covered
by
this
quedan,
Exhibit
A,
pointed
out
to
him;
That
the
then
assignee
(Mr.
Bayne)
and
one
of
his
accountants
showed
him
(Kaintzler)
the
530
bales
of
tobacco
with
the
tag
A.
F.
B.
C.
on
them,
and
these
bales
were
pointed
out
to
him
by
Mr.
Bayne
as
the
tobacco
which
belonged
to
the
American
Foreign
Banking
Corporation.
"The
quedan
(Exhibit
A)
is
in
the
same
form
as
quedan
No.
A-155,
which,
in
the
case
of
Felisa
Roman
vs.
Asia
Banking
Corporation,
was
declared
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
Philippine
Islands
to
be
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt
conveying
title
to
the
said
bank
superior
to
that
of
the
vendor's
lien
of
Felisa
Roman
(R.
G.
No.
17825)
American
Bank
took
said
warehouse
receipt
for
value
The
evidence
shows
that
said
quedan
(Exhibit
A)
was
taken
by
the
American
Bank
for
value,
believing
it
to
be
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt,
and
without
reasonable
cause
to
believe
that
the
debtor
U.
de
Poli
(who
was
operating
a
public
warehouse
at
the
time)
was
insolvent.
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
The
only
question
raised
by
the
attorneys
for
the
assignee
and
for
the
common
creditors
which
will
be
considered
by
the
court
is
that
as
to
the
sufficiency
of
the
description
of
the
tobacco
in
said
warehouse
receipt.
This
lot
of
tobacco
was
the
only
tobacco
in
the
warehouse.
The
debtor
said
that
it
was
the
tobacco
which
he
transferred
to
the
claimant
bank.
The
tobacco
was
pointed
out
by
the
then
assignee
to
the
claimant's
representative
as
the
tobacco
covered
by
said
quedan,
Exhibit
A.
Hence,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
any
doubt
about
the
identity
of
the
tobacco.
The
only
question
left
for
consideration
is
whether
the
use
of
the
word
'Cagayan'
instead
of
'lsabela'
in
describing
the
tobacco
in
the
quedan
renders
the
quedan
null
and
void
as
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt
for
the
tobacco
intended
to
be
covered
by
it.
The
insolvent,
U.
de
Poli,
testified
positively
that
this
quedan
referred
to
the
tobacco
in
the
Azcarraga
warehouse,
and
he
explained
the
discrepancy
in
the
description.
The
then
assignee
(Mr.
Bayne)
was
evidently
convinced
that
this
lot
of
tobacco
belonged
to
the
claimant
bank,
because
he
pointed
it
out
to
one
of
the
bank's
employees,
who
noted
the
tags
thereon
bearing
the
initials
of
the
claimant
bank.
ISSUES:
W/N
the
description
of
the
tobacco
in
the
quedan
is
sufficnet
Yes
it
is
W/N
the
quedan
is
valid
despite
the
warehouse
receipt
referring
to
Cagayan
instead
of
Isabela
Valid
HELD:
CA
judgment
affirmed.
American
Bank
wins.
RATIO:
The
intention
of
the
parties
to
the
transaction
must
prevail
against
such
a
technical
objection
as
to
the
sufficiency
of
the
description
of
the
tobacco.
It
might
be
different
if
there
had
been
Cagayan
tobacco
in
the
warehouse
at
the
time
of
the
issuance
of
the
quedan,
Exhibit
A,
or
if
there
were
any
doubt
whatever
as
to
the
identity
of
the
tobacco
intended
to
be
covered
by
the
quedan.
The
assignee
stands
in
the
shoes
of
the
insolvent,
and,
while
it
is
his
duty
to
protect
the
general
creditors,
he
is
not
in
the
position
of
a
judgment
creditor
with
an
unsatisfied
execution.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
considerations,
the
court
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
quedan,
Exhibit
A,
is
a
negotiable
warehouse
receipt
which
was
duly
issued
and
delivered
by
the
debtor
Poli
to
American
Bank,
and
that
it
divested
Poli
of
his
title
to
said
tobacco
and
transferred
the
position
and
the
title
thereof
to
the
American
Foreign
Banking
Corporation.
It
is
therefore
ordered
and
adjudged
that
the
assignee
deliver
the
said
five
hundred
and
thirty
(530)
bales
of
tobacco
to
the
American
Foreign
Banking
Corporation,
upon
payment
by
said
bank
of
any
liens
or
charges
thereon,
or,
in
the
event
of
said
tobacco
having
been
sold,
the
proceeds
thereof,
less
the
storage
and
insurance
charges
paid
after
the
declaration
of
insolvency;
and
thereafter
due
report
will
be
made
to
this
court
of
such
delivery
to
the
claimant
bank
in
order
that
the
proceeds
be
deducted
from
the
balance
due
to
said
claimant
bank
from
the
insolvent
debtor.
5.
BPI
v.
Herridge
-
Georgina
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
BPI
vs
Herridge-
FU
ER:
POLI
is
an
exporter
and
license
warehouseman.
He
stores
his
export
goods
in
his
own
warehouse
and
indorsed
the
receipts
to
the
bank.
Poli
became
insolvent.
Creditors
(banks
and
unsecured
creditors)
were
claiming
against
his
estate
and
goods
in
his
warehouse.
The
unsecured
creditors
were
saying
that
the
receipts
were
not
negotiable,
hence
the
bank
has
no
preference
of
credit
over
them
ISSUE:
WON
the
warehouse
receipts
issued
by
POLI
were
negotiable?
Yes
SC:
based
on
sec
7
of
the
Act,
for
a
receipt
to
be
non-
negotiable
the
words
not
negotiable
or
non-
negotiable
must
appear
on
the
FACE
of
the
receipts,
which
do
not
appear
here.
Also,
it
was
an
order
receipt
o
to
the
order
of
POLI
instrument,
since
he
owns
the
goods,
stores
them
and
indorsed
them
to
the
bank.
DOCTRINE:
Warehouse
receipts
play
an
important
role
in
the
commercial
world,
hence
it
must
be
construed
liberally
in
favor
of
the
holder,
so,
when
the
words
not
negotiable
or
non
negotiable
does
not
appear
on
the
face
of
the
receipts
it
would
be
considered
as
NEGOTIABLE
RECEIPTS
even
if
there
is
no
statement
that
the
goods
were
to
be
delivered
to
the
bearer
or
to
a
specified
person.
FACTS:
Umberto
de
Poli
(POLI)
is
engaged
in
the
export
business
(hemp,
maguey
and
tobacco.)
He
is
also
a
licensed
warehouseman.
To
facilitate
his
business:
1. he
opened
a
current
account
with
banks
(HSBC,
BPI,
Asia
Banking
Corp,
Chartered
Bank
of
India,
Australia
and
China,
and
Amercan
Banking
Corporation)
2. he
drew
checks
against
it
3. buys
his
goods
4. issues
warehouse
receipts
for
his
goods,
5. indorsed
the
receipts
to
the
bank
6. when
the
goods
have
been
purchased,
he
would
exchanged
the
warehouse
receipts
in
lieu
of
a. shipping
papers,
b. Draft,
drawn
against
the
foreign
purchasers
in
favor
of
the
bank
c. Bill
of
Lading
7. Banks
would
receive
the
entire
proceeds
of
his
sale
8. Banks
would
credit
proceeds
to
his
current
account
POLI
was
declared
insolvent,
banks
(secured
creditors
due
to
the
warehouse
receipts)
and
unsecured
creditors
were
claiming
ownership
against
the
goods
stored
in
POLIs
warehouse
Unsecured
crdiors
were
claiming
that
the
receipts
are
o Not
negotiable
o Endoresement
conveyed
no
title
to
the
property
o Not
pledges,
no
delivery
of
merchendise
o Hence,
banks
have
no
preference
of
credit
over
them
ISSUE:
WON
the
warehouse
receipts
are
negotiable?
YES
RATIO:
SC:
The
Warehouse
receipts
issued
by
POLI
are
negotiable,
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
Nego
Week
14
Sec
7
of
the
Act
provides
that
in
order
to
be
non-negotiable,
the
instrument
must
contain
on
its
FACE
the
words
nonnegotiable
or
not
negotiable
nowhere
in
the
face
of
the
instrument
were
these
words
stipulated
The
intention
to
make
it
negotiable
was
clear
from
the
receipts-
o Since
POLI
deposited
the
goods
in
his
own
warehouse,
and
it
is
stated
in
the
receipts
that
he
is
the
owner
of
such,
although
there
is
no
statement
that
the
goods
are
to
be
delivered
to
the
bearer
of
the
receipt
or
specified
person,
it
must
be
PRESUMED
that
the
goods
are
subject
to
the
order
of
POLI
(order
receipts)
Moreover,
since
warehouse
receipts
play
an
important
role
in
the
commercial
business,
it
must
be
construed
liberally
in
favor
of
the
holder
POSSIBLE
questions:
Receipt
was
written
in
Spanish,
o MAGPANTAY
(agent
of
POLI)
wrote
the
receipts
made
an
error
in
the
translation.
o Por-
might
mean
in
English
by,
for,
for
the
account
of.-
hence
the
court
declared
it
must
be
construed
to
mean
by
order
of
POLI
POLI
was
declared
insolvent
to
the
amount
of
several
million
pesos
over
his
asset.
*not
pertinent,
but
nevertheless:
Unsecured
creditors
made
an
issue
regarding
comingling
of
goods
because
the
receipts
were
issued
by
POLI
prior
to
possession
GR:
Warehouseman
may
not
comingle
goods,
unless
expressly
authorized
by
the
owner.
o Here,
since
POLI
was
also
the
owner
of
it,
then
the
banks
share
in
the
goods
would
be
in
proportion
of
the
mass.
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015