
OUTLINE OF RULES ON DELIVERY OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
Category: Law on Negotiable Instruments
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. - Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
SCOPE OF SECTION
Applies to an instrument mechanically complete but undelivered
UNDELIVERED INSTRUMENT IS INCOMPLETE
Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto
DELIVERY AND ISSUE
As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing as the case may be
Issue—the first delivery of the instrument, complete in form, to a person who takes it as a holder
OUTLINE OF RULES ON DELIVERY OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
1. Delivery is essential to the validity of any negotiable instrument
2. As between immediate parties, or those in like cases, delivery must have been with the intention of passing title
3. An instrument signed by the drawer/maker but not completed by him and retained in his own custody, is invalid as to him for want of delivery, even though stolen or negotiated to a holder in due course
4. But when the instrument mentioned above is in the hands of a holder of due course, there is prima facie presumption of delivery which the maker/drawer may rebut by proof of non-delivery
5. Where the custody of the incomplete instrument has been entrusted to another, who wrongfully completes and negotiates it to a holder in due course, delivery to an agent or custodian is sufficient delivery to bind the drawer or maker
6. Where maker or drawer executes a complete instrument which is found in the possession of another other than a holder in due course, there is a prima facie presumpton of delivery—but subject to rebuttal
7. Where the instrument mentioned above is in the hands of a holder in due course, there is a conclusive presumption of delivery
8. Delivery of the instrument may be made on a parol condition or for a special purpose not inconsistent with its written terms, where the validity of the instrument is to arise out of the performance of the condition or consummation of the purpose. But such condition or specification or purpose doesn't affect the rights of a holder in due course. Such conditions is a condition precedent, and is to be sharply distinguished from a condition subsequent, the happening or non-happening of which is to defeat or qualify the instrument. Such condition subsequent contradicts the written terms and may not be set up by parol evidence.
RIGHT TO REVOKE
Before delivery, the maker or drawer can revoke, cancel, or tear up the instrument
LITERAL MEANING OF IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE PARTIES
The drawer and payee are immediate parties to one another
Maker and payee are immediate parties to one another
Indorser and indorsee are also immediate parties to one another
BROAD MEANING OF IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE PARTIES
Immediate parties are confined to “those who are immediate, in the sense of knowing or being held to know the conditions or limitations placed upon the delivery of the instrument—privity and not proximity
Criterion: Whether or not the party in question knows of the conditions or limitations placed upon the delivery of the fact that the instrument was not delivered but stolen..
o If the party in question knows, he is an immediate party even if he is not physically remote
o If he doesn’t know, he is not an immediate party even if he is the next party immediately
PRESUMPTION OF VALID DELIVERY AS TO IMMEDIATE PARTY OR REMOTE PARTY NOT HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved
Presumption is however rebuttable
DELIVERY FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES
For safekeeping or for collection only
PRESUMPTION OF DELIVERY AS TO HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Conclusively presumed
There is conclusive presumption where the contrary proof is barred
PERSONAL DEFENSE
The possible defense of a party sought to be charged is that the instrument wasn't delivered, or if delivered, the delivery wasn't authorized or only on a condition or for a special purpose
“Want of delivery of a mechanically complete instrument” defense
It can however be interposed against an immediate party and remote parties not holders in due course inasmuch as the presumption of valid and intentional delivery is only rebuttable as to immediate parties and to remote parties who are not holders in due course
Only personal defense
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENTS
DEFENSES UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 16
1. It wasn’t delivered either by or under the authority of the party making, delivering, accepting or indorsing the instrument
2. It was for a conditional purpose
3. It was for a special purpose only
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
OUTLINE OF RULES ON DELIVERY OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
Category: Law on Negotiable Instruments
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. - Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
SCOPE OF SECTION
Applies to an instrument mechanically complete but undelivered
UNDELIVERED INSTRUMENT IS INCOMPLETE
Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto
DELIVERY AND ISSUE
As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing as the case may be
Issue—the first delivery of the instrument, complete in form, to a person who takes it as a holder
OUTLINE OF RULES ON DELIVERY OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
1. Delivery is essential to the validity of any negotiable instrument
2. As between immediate parties, or those in like cases, delivery must have been with the intention of passing title
3. An instrument signed by the drawer/maker but not completed by him and retained in his own custody, is invalid as to him for want of delivery, even though stolen or negotiated to a holder in due course
4. But when the instrument mentioned above is in the hands of a holder of due course, there is prima facie presumption of delivery which the maker/drawer may rebut by proof of non-delivery
5. Where the custody of the incomplete instrument has been entrusted to another, who wrongfully completes and negotiates it to a holder in due course, delivery to an agent or custodian is sufficient delivery to bind the drawer or maker
6. Where maker or drawer executes a complete instrument which is found in the possession of another other than a holder in due course, there is a prima facie presumpton of delivery—but subject to rebuttal
7. Where the instrument mentioned above is in the hands of a holder in due course, there is a conclusive presumption of delivery
8. Delivery of the instrument may be made on a parol condition or for a special purpose not inconsistent with its written terms, where the validity of the instrument is to arise out of the performance of the condition or consummation of the purpose. But such condition or specification or purpose doesn't affect the rights of a holder in due course. Such conditions is a condition precedent, and is to be sharply distinguished from a condition subsequent, the happening or non-happening of which is to defeat or qualify the instrument. Such condition subsequent contradicts the written terms and may not be set up by parol evidence.
RIGHT TO REVOKE
Before delivery, the maker or drawer can revoke, cancel, or tear up the instrument
LITERAL MEANING OF IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE PARTIES
The drawer and payee are immediate parties to one another
Maker and payee are immediate parties to one another
Indorser and indorsee are also immediate parties to one another
BROAD MEANING OF IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE PARTIES
Immediate parties are confined to “those who are immediate, in the sense of knowing or being held to know the conditions or limitations placed upon the delivery of the instrument—privity and not proximity
Criterion: Whether or not the party in question knows of the conditions or limitations placed upon the delivery of the fact that the instrument was not delivered but stolen..
o If the party in question knows, he is an immediate party even if he is not physically remote
o If he doesn’t know, he is not an immediate party even if he is the next party immediately
PRESUMPTION OF VALID DELIVERY AS TO IMMEDIATE PARTY OR REMOTE PARTY NOT HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved
Presumption is however rebuttable
DELIVERY FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES
For safekeeping or for collection only
PRESUMPTION OF DELIVERY AS TO HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Conclusively presumed
There is conclusive presumption where the contrary proof is barred
PERSONAL DEFENSE
The possible defense of a party sought to be charged is that the instrument wasn't delivered, or if delivered, the delivery wasn't authorized or only on a condition or for a special purpose
“Want of delivery of a mechanically complete instrument” defense
It can however be interposed against an immediate party and remote parties not holders in due course inasmuch as the presumption of valid and intentional delivery is only rebuttable as to immediate parties and to remote parties who are not holders in due course
Only personal defense
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENTS
DEFENSES UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 16
1. It wasn’t delivered either by or under the authority of the party making, delivering, accepting or indorsing the instrument
2. It was for a conditional purpose
3. It was for a special purpose only
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 1 week ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Republic Act No. 90…
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9006 AN ACT TO ENHANCE THE HOLDING OF FREE, ORDERLY, HONEST, PEACEFUL AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS THROUGH FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Fair Election Act."Sec. 2. Declaration of Princip...
Read moreStriking out indors…
Sec. 48. Striking out indorsement. - The holder may at any time strike out any indorsement which is not necessary to his title. The indorser whose indorsement is struck out, and all indorsers subsequent to him, are thereby r...
Read morePNB V. MAZA AND MEC…
PNB V. MAZA AND MECENAS 48 PHIL 207 FACTS: Maza and Macenas executed a total of five promissory notes. These were not paid at maturity. And to recover the amounts stated on the face of the promissory notes, PNB initiated an action against ...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

