Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Spouses Violago vs. BA Finance - Arenal PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aj Sobrevega
    The spouses Violago agreed to purchase a car from Violago Motor Sales Corporation, making a down payment and signing a promissory note to pay the balance to BA Finance. However, the car was never delivered as it had already been previously sold. BA Finance filed a complaint against the spouses, which the RTC and CA ruled in favor of, finding the promissory note to be a negotiable instrument and BA Finance a holder in due course. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' dismissal of the spouses' third party complaint against Avelino Violago, reinstating the RTC decision in their favor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Violago vs. BA Finance - Arenal PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aj Sobrevega
    83 views1 page
    The spouses Violago agreed to purchase a car from Violago Motor Sales Corporation, making a down payment and signing a promissory note to pay the balance to BA Finance. However, the car was never delivered as it had already been previously sold. BA Finance filed a complaint against the spouses, which the RTC and CA ruled in favor of, finding the promissory note to be a negotiable instrument and BA Finance a holder in due course. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' dismissal of the spouses' third party complaint against Avelino Violago, reinstating the RTC decision in their favor.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3. Spouses Violago vs. BA Finance_Arenal.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Violago agreed to purchase a car from Violago Motor Sales Corporation, making a down payment and signing a promissory note to pay the balance to BA Finance. However, the car was never delivered as it had already been previously sold. BA Finance filed a complaint against the spouses, which the RTC and CA ruled in favor of, finding the promissory note to be a negotiable instrument and BA Finance a holder in due course. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' dismissal of the spouses' third party complaint against Avelino Violago, reinstating the RTC decision in their favor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    83 views1 page

    Spouses Violago vs. BA Finance - Arenal PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aj Sobrevega
    The spouses Violago agreed to purchase a car from Violago Motor Sales Corporation, making a down payment and signing a promissory note to pay the balance to BA Finance. However, the car was never delivered as it had already been previously sold. BA Finance filed a complaint against the spouses, which the RTC and CA ruled in favor of, finding the promissory note to be a negotiable instrument and BA Finance a holder in due course. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' dismissal of the spouses' third party complaint against Avelino Violago, reinstating the RTC decision in their favor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    158262, July 21, 2008


    SPS. PEDRO AND FLORENCIA VIOLAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. BA FINANCE DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
    CORPORATION AND AVELINO VIOLAGO, RESPONDENTS.
    VELASCO JR., J. WHEREFORE, the CA's August 20, 2002 Decision and May 15, 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R.
    CV No. 48489 are SET ASIDE insofar as they dismissed without prejudice the third party
    FACTS: complaint of petitioners-spouses Pedro and Florencia Violago against respondent Avelino
     Sometime in 1983, Avelino Violago, President of Violago Motor Sales Corporation Violago. The March 5, 1994 Decision of the RTC is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs
    (VMSC), offered to sell a car to the petioners. Avelino explained that he needed to against Avelino Violago.
    sell a vehicle to increase the sales quota of VMSC, and that the spouses would just
    have to pay a down payment of PhP 60,500 while the balance would be financed by
    respondent BA Finance.
     The spouses would pay the monthly installments to BA Finance. Under these terms,
    the spouses then agreed to purchase a Toyota Cressida Model 1983 from VMSC. On
    August 4, 1983, the spouses and Avelino signed a promissory note under which they
    bound themselves to pay jointly and severally to the order of VMSC the amount of
    PhP 209,601 in 36 monthly installments of PhP 5,822.25 a month, the first
    installment to be due and payable on September 16, 1983.
     VMSC then issued a sales invoice in favor of the spouses with a detailed description
    of the Toyota Cressida car. In turn, the spouses executed a chattel mortgage over the
    car in favor of VMSC as security for the amount of PhP 209,601. VMSC, through
    Avelino, endorsed the promissory note to BA Finance without recourse. After
    receiving the amount of PhP 209,601, VMSC executed a Deed of Assignment of its
    rights and interests under the promissory note and chattel mortgage in favor of BA
    Finance. Meanwhile, the spouses remitted the amount of PhP 60,500 to VMSC
    through Avelino.
     The sales invoice was filed with the Land Transportation Office (LTO)-Baliwag
    Branch, which issued Certificate of Registration No. 0137032 in the name of Pedro
    on August 8, 1983. The spouses were unaware that the same car had already been
    sold in 1982 to Esmeraldo Violago, another cousin of Avelino, and registered in
    Esmeraldo's name by the LTO-San Rafael Branch.
     Despite the spouses' demand for the car and Avelino's repeated assurances, there
    was no delivery of the vehicle. Since VMSC failed to deliver the car, Pedro did not
    pay any monthly amortization to BA Finance.
     On March 1, 1984, BA Finance filed with the RTC a complaint for Replevin with
    Damages against the spouses.
     The RTC rendered a decision in favor of BA Finance. Petitioners-spouses and
    Avelino appealed to the CA. The appellate court ruled that the promissory note was
    a negotiable instrument and that BA Finance was a holder in due course.

    ISSUE:
    • Whether or not the promissory note issued by spouses Violago is negotiable

    HELD:
     Yes. The promissory note is clearly negotiable. The promissory note clearly satisfies
    the requirements of a negotiable instrument under the NIL.
     It is in writing; signed by the Violago spouses; has an unconditional promise to pay
    a certain amount, i.e., PhP 209,601, on specific dates in the future which could be
    determined from the terms of the note; made payable to the order of VMSC; and
    names the drawees with certainty
     The indorsement by VMSC to BA Finance appears likewise to be valid and regular.

    You might also like