Nego FACTS:
[03] TING TING PUA v SPS LO BUN TONG  A Complaint for a Sum of Mone y was file d by Pua against Sps. Lo Bun Tiong
GR No. 198660 | Oct. 23, 2013
Justice Velasco, Jr.
Freya Patron | Group 2
PETITONER: Ting Ting Pua
RESPONDENTS: Spouses Be nito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Te ng
TOPIC: (as state d in the syllabus)
 Issuance – De live ry
CASE SUMMARY: Pua file d a complaint for a sum of money against the Spouses Lo
Bun Tiong in the amount of P8.5M cove re d by a check. According to Pua, she did not
re quire any collateral for the loan e xce pt post-date d checks bearing the borrowe d
amounts, so the spouses issue d 17 checks totaling P1.975M which we re dishonored
upon presentme nt to the bank. She eve ntually file d a case because the subse que nt
Asiatrust check issue d was also dishonore d. On the othe r hand, the spouses de nie d
obtaining a loan from Pua and also de nie d comple ting the Asiatrust check. The RTC
rule d in favor of Pua, but the CA re ve rse d. The SC rule d that the CA erre d in
re ve rsing the RTC. In a suit for recovery of sum of money, plaintiff-cre ditor has the
burde n of proof to show that de fe ndant has not paid loan. But it is also long
establishe d that whe re the plaintiff-cre ditor possesses and submits in e vide nce an
instrume nt showing the inde bte dness, a presumption that cre dit has not been
satisfie d arises in he r favor. The CA discounte d the value of the only hard pieces of
e vide nce in this case – the checks issue d by the wife in 1988 and 1996 that we re in
possession of, and prese nte d in court by Pua. A check constitute s an e vide nce of
inde bte dness and is a veritable proof of an obligation. It can be use d in lie u of and for
the same purpose as a promissory note. The 17 original checks, comple te d and
de livere d to Pua, are sufficie nt by themse lves to prove the existe nce of the loan. The
wife had not de nie d the ge nuine ness of the checks. Instead, he r argume nt was they
we re give n to various othe r pe rsons and Pua had s imply collecte d all the checks to
damage the Spouses’ re putation. The SC re instate d the RTC decision.
DOCTRINE: When an instrument is no longer in possession of the person who
signed it and it is complete in its terms, a valid and intentional delivery by him is
presumed until the contrary is proved.
(Spouses). Pua praye d for the Spouses to pay he r P8.5M covere d by a check.
 During trial, Pua clarifie d that the P8.5M che ck was give n by Spouses to pay
loans the y obtaine d from he r unde r a compounde d inte rest agreeme nt on
various dates in 1988.
o Pua’s siste r Lilian vouche d for Spouses’ ability to pay so that when
Spouses approache d her, she imme diate ly acce de d and le nt money
without re quiring any collateral e xce pt post-date d checks bearing
the borrowe d amounts.
o Spouses issue d 17 checks for a total of P1.975M. These checks were
dishonore d upon presentme nt to drawee bank.
 Because of the dishonor, Pua de mande d payme nt but the Spouses aske d for
more time because of the ir financial difficultie s. Pua oblige d and simply
re minde d them of the ir inde bte dness from time to time .
 Some time in Se pt. 1996 whe n the ir financial situation became bette r, Spouses
allege dly calle d and aske d Pua for the computation of the ir loan.
o Pua showe d them that total was P13,218,544.20, using the ir agreed
rate of 2% compounde d inte rest rate pe r month.
o Spouses reque ste d amount to be lowere d to P8.5M and Pua oblige d
 Spouses de livere d an Asiatrust Check bearing the amount P8.5M date d March
30, 1997 with the assurance that the check was good. In turn, they demande d for
the re turn of the 17 pre viously dishonore d che cks.
o Pua re fuse d to re turn the bad checks, wanting first to e ncash the
Asiatrust Check.
 The Asiatrust Che ck was also dishonore d. Pua then file d a complaint to collect.
 Spouses’ de fense –
o The y de nie d obtaining a loan from Pua
o The wife said that in Aug. 1995, she and Lilian (Pua ’s sister) forge d
a partnership that ope rate d a mahjong business. The agreeme nt
was for Lilian to se rve as capitalist while the wife will be the
cashier, and agreed to use he r personal checks to pay for the
operational e xpe nses.
o Since the y anticipate d that the wife will not always be in town to
pre pare the checks, she le ft with Lilian 5 pre -signe d and
consecutive ly numbe re d checks on the condition that the checks
will only be use d to cover the costs of the business operations and
in no circumstance will the amount of checks e xcee d P5k.
 o In March 1996, the wife and Lilian had a serious disagreeme nt that
re sulte d in the dissolution of the ir partnership. The wife admitte d
that in the haste of the ir dissolution, she forgot about the checks.
o It was only whe n Lilian’s husband file d a complaint for sum of
mone y in Feb. 1997 against the Spouses to recover P5,175,250
covering 3/5 post-date d and pre -signe d checks.
o The wife de nie d having comple te d the Asiatrust Check by using a
check write r or type write r as she had no check write r and she had
always complete d checks in he r own handwriting. She insiste d that
Pua and her sister comple te d the check after its de livery.
o She also could not have gone to see Pua with he r husband as they
had been se parate in fact for nearly 10 years.
o As for the 17 checks issue d by her in 1988, the wife said the y were
not inte nde d for Pua but for the be ne fit of othe r persons.
o The wife said the complaint was designe d to allow Liilan to re cover
her losses in the fore ign e xchange business she had with he r.
o The husband corroborate d his wife ’s te stimony respecting the ir
almost a de cade of se paration so he could not have accompanie d
her to see Pua to pe rsuade Pua to lowe r down any allege d
inde bte dness. In fact, be fore the filing of the complaint, he never
me t Pua. He claims he was impleade d to attach his prope rty and
force him to e nter into an amicable se ttle me nt with Pua.
o He said the Asiatrust Check came from an account that be longe d
sole ly to his wife .
 The witness for the Spouses, Tuazon, testifie d –
o That the wife ope ne d an Asiatrust account in Se pt. 1994. Her
average maintaining balance was P2k and the highest amount she
isse d was P435k. She always comple te d her checks with her own
handwriting and not a check write r.
o On Oct. 15, 1996, he r checking account was close d at the instance of
the bank due to 69 instances of check issuance against insufficie nt
balance .
 RTC – in favor of Pua.
o Possession of che cks signe d by the wife , under NIL, raises the
presumption that they we re issue d and de live re d for a valuable
consideration.
o Discounte d testimony for de fe nse comple te ly de nying the loan
obligation to Pua.
o But it re fuse d to orde r Spouses to pay P8.5M conside ring that the
agree ment to pay inte rest on the loan was not e xpressly stipulate d
in wr iting by the parties.
o Orde re d Spouses to pay principal + le gal interest from date of
de mand.
 CA – se t aside RTC.
o Asiatrust Check was an incomple te de livere d instrume nt and that
Pua faile d to prove the e xiste nce of the Spouses ’ indebte dness to
her. There fore , Pua had no cause of action against the spouses.
ISSUE and RULING: (Doctrine in bold le tte rs)
WON there was in fact a loan obligation to Pua. (YES)
 In a suit for recove ry of sum of money, plaintiff-cre ditor has the burde n of proof
to show that de fendant has not paid loan. But it is also long establishe d that
whe re the plaintiff-cre ditor possesses and submits in e vide nce an instrume nt
showing the indebte dness, a presumption that cre dit has not bee n satisfie d arises
in he r favor. The re fore , the de fe ndant is require d to overcome the presumption.
 The CA discounte d the value of the only hard pieces of e vide nce in this case – the
checks issue d by the wife in 1988 and 1996 that we re in possession of, and
prese nte d in court by Pua .
o A check constitutes an e vide nce of inde bte dness and is a veritable proof of
an obligation. It can be use d in lie u of and for the same purpose as a
promissory note . (Pacheco v CA)
o A check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an
unde rtaking to pay an amount of money but is an order addresse d to a bank
and partakes of a re presentation that the drawe r has funds on de posit
against which check is drawn, sufficie nt to e nsure payme nt upon its
prese ntation the bank. (Lozano v Martine z)
o The very same principle is found in NIL 24 (Pre sumption of consideration)
 The 17 original checks, comple te d and de live re d to Pua, are sufficie nt by
themse lves to prove the e xiste nce of the loan. The wife had not de nie d the
ge nuine ness of the checks. Instead, he r argument was they we re give n to various
othe r pe rsons and Pua had s imply collecte d all the checks to damage the
Spouses’ re putation.
o Incre dible and runs counte r to human e xperie nce e nshrine d in NIL 16:
“When an instrument is no longer in possession of the person who signed
it and it is complete in its terms, a valid and intentional delivery by him is
presumed until the contrary is proved.”
 SC obse rvations re : CA’s appreciation of e vide nce -
o CA ove rlooke d the original copie s of the bank re turn slips offe re d by Pua in
e vide nce . The return slips show that 1988 checks issue d by the wife were
dishonore d be cause they were drawn against insufficie nt funds.
o As for the Asiatrust check issue d by the wife to substitute the compounde d
value of the 1988 checks, CA sympathize d with Spouses’ ve rsion holding
that it is buttresse d by Spouses ’ alle gations describing the same de fense
made in BP22 case and civil complaint for collection of sum of mone y file d
against them by Pua ’s brothe r-in-law. Eve n if the y were acquitte d, SC
sustaine d the factual findings in the civil case finding the m civilly liable to
pay the amount of the checks.
 It seems that the wife displaye d cavalie r attitude towards the value and the
obligation concomitant with the issuance of a check. As atteste d to by Spouses ’
own witne ss, the wife really has a docume nte d history of issuing insufficie ntly
funde d checks for 69 times at the ve ry least.
 The SC sustaine d the finding that inte rest cannot be collecte d be cause it was not
in writing. It also adde d that the husband cannot escape the joint and solidary
liability to pay because without any e vide nce to the contrary, it is presume d that
procee ds of the loan re dounde d to the be nefit of the ir family so the CPG is liable .

*although the e xistence of a loan is a question of fact, the SC still e ntertaine d the
pe tition be cause the case fe ll unde r the e xce ption – the RTC and CA rulings we re not
in consonance with each other.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the MR is GRANTED. The Resolution of this Court

dated April 18, 2012 is set aide and a new one entered REVERSIN and SETTING
ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the CA. The Decision of the RTC is
REINSTATED with MODIFICATION.
According ly, respondents Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng are
ordered to jointly and solidarily to pay petitioner P1.975M + 6% interest per annum
from April 18, 1997, until fully paid, and P200k as attorney’s fees.