This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Yet, it does not follow that simply because he is not a holder in due course, Marasigan is already totally barred from recovery. The NIL does not provide that a holder who is not a holder in due course may not in any case recover on the instrument.[22] The only disadvantage of a holder who is not in due course is that the negotiable instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable.[23] Among such defenses is the filling up blank not within the authority. | |||||