Salas v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 76788. January 22, 1990]

30 Jul


Petitioner claims she be released of liability because of fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation of Violago Motor Sales (VMS) Corporation, which delivered the motor vehicle after she executed a promissory note with private respondent.



Whether or not such fraud would relieve petitioner of her liability from private respondent.



NO. The fraud in this case is with the contractual relations with VMS and not to the promissory note. Respondent corporation holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof. This being so, petitioner cannot set up against respondent the defense of nullity of the contract of sale between her and VMS.



Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: