This case involved warehouse receipts issued by Noah's Ark covering sugar deposits owned by various entities. Four receipts were later negotiated to Luis Ramos and Cresencia Zoleta, who used them to secure a loan from PNB. When the loan was not repaid, PNB demanded the sugar but Noah's Ark refused, claiming ownership. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent endorsers of the receipts acquired ownership of the sugar, as the initial sale transferring ownership was valid. Noah's Ark therefore had no legal right to the sugar and was ordered to deliver it to PNB.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100%(2)100% found this document useful (2 votes)
50 views2 pages
PNB vs. Sayo
This case involved warehouse receipts issued by Noah's Ark covering sugar deposits owned by various entities. Four receipts were later negotiated to Luis Ramos and Cresencia Zoleta, who used them to secure a loan from PNB. When the loan was not repaid, PNB demanded the sugar but Noah's Ark refused, claiming ownership. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent endorsers of the receipts acquired ownership of the sugar, as the initial sale transferring ownership was valid. Noah's Ark therefore had no legal right to the sugar and was ordered to deliver it to PNB.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
AUTHORSHIP INFORMATION
Digest Author Grace Ann Tamboon
Topic Warehouse Receipt Law Satisfaction of Lien CASE INFORMATION Petitioner(s) Philippine National Bank Respondent(s) Hon. Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr. Reference G.R. No. 129918 July 9, 1998 Ponente Villarama, Jr., J. DOCTRINE(S)
The subsequent endorsers of a warehouse receipt acquire ownership of the goods covered by the receipt, provided that the initial sale was valid.
deposits by Rosa Sy, RNS Merchandising, and St. Therese Merchandising. Four of these receipts were subsequently negotiated to Luis Ramos and Cresencia Zoleta, who used them to secure a loan with PNB. Pertinent Facts Ramos and Zoleta failed to pay the loan, so PNB demanded delivery of the sugar deposits covered by the warehouse receipts. However, Noah's Ark refused, claiming ownership over the sugar.
Noah's Ark argued that the initial sale of the sugar to
Rosa Sy and Teresita Ng of St. Therese Merchandising was a simulated sale, and subsequent endorsers did not acquire ownership of the sugar deposits.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
RTC RTC Manila denied the writ of attachment.
CA CA ordered RTC to render a summary judgment in
favor of PNB.
Relevant Issue(s) Whether or not the subsequent endorsers of the
warehouse receipts acquired ownership of the sugar deposits covered by the receipts.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the
subsequent endorsers of the warehouse receipts acquired ownership of the sugar deposits covered by Analysis the receipts, and the initial sale of the sugar to Rosa Sy and Teresita Ng was a valid sale. As such, Noah's Ark had no legal right to claim ownership over the sugar deposits, and PNB was entitled to damages. Therefore, the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and the defendants' counterclaims was reversed, and Noah's Ark was ordered to deliver the sugar to PNB.
The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent
endorsers of the warehouse receipts acquired ownership of the sugar deposits covered by the receipts. The court held that the initial sale of the sugar to Rosa Sy and Teresita Ng was a valid sale, and Ruling(s) & Rationale subsequent endorsers acquired ownership of the sugar. The court also held that Noah's Ark had no legal right to claim ownership over the sugar deposits, and PNB was entitled to damages. The trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and the defendants' counterclaims was reversed, and Noah's Ark was ordered to deliver the sugar to PNB.
Philippine Commercial International Bank (Formerly Insular Bank of Asia and America) vs. Court of Appeals and Ford Philippines, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.