SESBRENO V. CA  

222 SCRA 466

 

FACTS:

Petitioner made a placement with Philfinance.  The latter delivered to him documents, some of which was a promissory note from Delta Motors and a post-dated check.  The post-dated checks were dishonored.  This prompted petitioner to ask for the promissory note from DMC and it was discovered that the note issued by DMC was marked as non-negotiable.  As Sesbreno failed to recover his money, he filed case against DMC and Philfinance.
 

HELD:

The  non-negotiability  of  the  instrument  doesn’t  mean  that  it  is  non-assignable or transferable.  It may still be assigned or transferred in whole or in part, even without the consent of the promissory note, since consent is not necessary for the validity of the assignment.
 
In  assignment,  the  assignee  is  merely  placed  in  the  position  of  the
assignors  and  acquires  the  instrument  subject  to  all  the  defenses  that
might have been set up against the original payee.