Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
B. TESTS OF NEGOTIABILITY
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. THEORY
01. What are the requisites of a negotiable
instruments? [1953, 1954, 1964, 1968,
1989, 1991, 1996, Bar Examinations].
02. What constitutes a holder in due
course? [1996, Bar Examinations].
03. Can a bill of exchange or a promissory
note qualify as a negotiable instrument if a.It is not dated; or
b.The date and the month, but not the
year of its maturity is given; or
c.It is payable to cash; or
d.It names two alternative drawees [1997,
Bar Examinations].
04. A promissory note reads as follows: I
promise
to
pay
Gabriela
Silangan
P1,000.00
three
years
after
the
unconditional withdrawal of the U.S. of its
military bases in the Philippines. Discuss
the negotiability or non-negotiability of the
note above [1966 Bar Examinations].
05. Can the payee in a promissory note be
a holder in due course within the
meaning of the Negotiable Instruments
Law? [2000 Bar Examinations].
06. How do you treat a negotiable
instrument that is so ambiguous that there
is a doubt whether it is a bill or a note?
[1999, Bar Examinations].
07. When a signature is so placed upon a
negotiable instrument that it is not clear in
what capacity the person making the
same intended to sign, what is his
liability? [1946, Bar Examinations].
08. When a negotiable instrument
contains the words I promise to pay and
DEFENSES
C.
FAILURE/ABSENCE
CONSIDERATION
OF
latter
indorsed
it
in
blank,
for
consideration, to Pablo Reyes, who, in
turn, sold it for P800.00, by delivery to
Antonio Gomez. The canned goods were
never forwarded to Flores. Gomez
presented the check to the bank, but
payment was refused because Reyes had
not put his name on it. Is the bank right in
so refusing? Why? If Gomez gave due
notice to Veraz and Co., may he recover
from the latter? May Gomez recover from
Santos? Why? May he recover from Reyes?
Why? [1968 Bar Examination].
UNDELIVERED
the
Bar