Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > November 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

006 Phil 667:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 3309. November 10, 1906. ]

THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A. A. MONTAGNE, Defendant-Appellant.

A. A. Montagne, in his own behalf.

J. N. Wolfson, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PROMISSORY NOTE; INDORSEMENT; ACTION. — Under article 462 in its relation to article 533 of the Code of Commerce, an indorsement upon a promissory note, in order the transfer the title thereto to the indorsee, must be dated. The indorsee of a promissory note, where the indorsement is not dated, can not maintain an action upon such promissory note in his own name, as owner, unless he shows affirmatively that he not in his own name, as owner, unless he sows affirmatively that he is the absolute owner, in which case his right to recover shall be governed by section 114 of the Code of Prosecution in Civil Actions.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an action commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 7th of October, 1904, by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the sum of 1,200 pesos upon a promissory note. The plaintiff in its complaint alleges of the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That it is a mercantile company duly organized under the law of the State of Connecticut and inscribed in the mercantile register in the city of Manila, in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the Philippine Islands, and that it has an office in Manila and is doing business in said city.

Second. That on the 5th of December, 1903, in the city of Manila, the defendant executed and delivered, for value received, to the Casa Comision de Martinez Gallegos y Compania a promissory note, promising to pay to the said Casa Comision, or its order, the sum of 1,200 pesos, conant, on the 5th of April, 1904.

Third. That later the said Casa Comision, for value received, indorsed said promissory note to the plaintiff, which at present is the owner of said promissory note.

Fourth. That said promissory note and its indorsements were in the words and figures following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No. 73.

"MANILA, 5 de Diciembre de 1903.

"Pagare en virtud del presente, en Manila, el dia cinco de Abril de 1904 proximo, a la orden de la Casa Comision la cantidad de pesos fuertes mil doscientos pesos conant valor recibido del mismo en efectivo para operaciones de comercio.

(Firmado) "A. A. MONTAGNE.

" $1,200.00, P.C. Hay un sello de 80 cent. de peso.

"(Endoso:) Casa Comision de Martinez Gallegos y Cia., Isla Romero, No. 2 Manila. P. P. de la Casa Comision. (Firmado) Vicente G. Azaola."cralaw virtua1aw library

Fifth. That said promissory note has not been paid, nor any part of the same, even though the payment has been duly demanded.

Sixth. That the defendant does not reside in the Philippine Islands and that the plaintiff believes and therefore alleges that the defendant is trying to dispose of his property with the intention to defraud his creditors; that he has no other guaranty sufficient to respond to this claim excepting the attachment asked for and that there does not exist in favor of the defendant any counterclaim against the plaintiff, and therefore prays the court —

(a) That he issue a writ of attachment upon the property of the defendant for the purpose of responding to the payment of any judgment which may be rendered against him.

(b) That the court render a judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 1,200 peso, conant, with interest and costs.

To this complaint the defendant filed a demurrer which, and among other things, alleged that the said complaint did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Upon a consideration of the demurrer, the court overruled the same, to which ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted; whereupon the defendant answered. The case then proceed to trial, and after hearing the evidence adduced in said cause the court rendered judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum prayed for in said complaint, to which judgment of the court the defendant duly excepted and the same time presented a motion for a new trial. The case is here on appeal.

The defendant assigns as error, among other things, the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant and appellant for the reason that the complaint of the plaintiff shows conclusively that the property in said promissory note had been transferred to the plaintiff and appellee.

Under this assignment of error the defendant and appellant argues that under the form of indorsement of said promissory note set out in the complaint the ownership of said promissory note did not pass to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Commercial Code in force in the Philippine Islands, and that therefore the plaintiff and appellee can not bring an action in its own name upon said promissory note — in other words, that the plaintiff and appellee as it appears upon the face of the complaint is not the real party in interest.

Article 462 of the Commercial Code in relation to article 533 provides what the indorsements of negotiable instruments must contain in order that the ownership of such instruments may be transferred by an endorsement. Paragraph 4 of said article provides that an indorsement of such instruments must contain "the date on which it is drawn."cralaw virtua1aw library

Article 463 of the same code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the date is omitted in the indorsement, the ownership of the draft shall not be transferred; it shall be understood as simply a commission for collection."cralaw virtua1aw library

An examination of the endorsement by the Casa Comision of said promissory note, as it appears in the complaint of the plaintiff, shows that the said indorsement contains no date; therefore, under above-quoted provisions of the Commercial Code, the plaintiff and appellee did not become the owner of said promissory note under such endorsement, and under the allegations of said complaint is not entitled to bring such actions, in its own name, as such owner. The facts, therefore, set out in the complaint are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff was entitled to bring action upon said promissory not as the owner of the same, and the demurrer should have been sustained.

The judgment of the lower court overruling said demurrer is hereby reversed and the cause is hereby ordered to be returned to the lower court, with permission on the part of the plaintiff to amend its complaint.

After the expiration of ten days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and let the case be returned in due time to the lower court for proper procedure. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Arellano, C.J., and Willard J., dissent.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91