Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Payad [Negotiable Instruments]

BPI vs. Roxas is lacking. In the present case, BPI did not present any proof to the
G.R. No. 157833 | October 15, 2007 | J. Sandoval-Gutierrez contrary that Roxas is not a holder in due course.
Topic: Holder in due course Here, there is no dispute that respondent received Rodrigo Cawilis
cashiers check as payment for the formers vegetable oil. The fact that
Petitioner: Bank of the Philippine Islands it was Rodrigo who purchased the cashiers check from petitioner will
Respondent: Gregorio C. Roxas not affect respondents status as a holder for value since the check
was delivered to him as payment for the vegetable oil he sold to
DOCTRINE: spouses Cawili.
As a general rule, every holder is presumed prima facie to be a holder
PETITION DENIED. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.
in due course. One who claims otherwise has the burden of proof that
one or more of the conditions required to constitute a holder in due
course are lacking.

FACTS:
Roxas, a trader, delivered stocks of vegetable oil to Spouses Cawili.
As payment, Spouses Cawili issued a personal check. However, when
Roxas tried to encash it, the check was dishonored.
Roxas and Cawili went to BPI and BPI issued a cashiers check drawn
against Cawilis account.
The following day, Roxas returned to BPI to encash the check but the
officers of the bank refused to encash it.
The officers tried to retrieve the cashiers check from Roxas.
Subsequently, Roxas then called his lawyer who advised him to
deposit the check in his own account at Citytrust, Ortigas
Avenue. However, the check was dishonored on the ground Account
Closed.
Roxas filed a petition to collect the sum of money in the check against
BPI in the RTC.
BPI opposed and says the issuance of a check is a mistake and there
is no consideration.
RTC ruled in favor of Roxas.
CA affirmed.

ISSUE: WON Roxas is a holder in due course, which entitles him to


receive the amount of the check.

HELD:
YES. Sec. 52 of the NIL presumes prima facie that every holder is a
holder in due course. The one who alleges that holder is not a holder
in due course has the onus probandi (burden of proof) of establishing
that one of the conditions required to constitute a holder in due course