4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly enforced to defeat SCPL's right as a holder in due course to enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon.[60] In its Comment,[61] EPCIB counters that the CA correctly absolved EPCIB from any liability by reason of unjust enrichment and cites Article 22 of the Civil Code, which provides that every person who through an act or performance of another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.[62] EPCIB argues that the unjust enrichment principle is applicable considering that Llorente already received the value of the subject bank drafts from EPCIB; and requiring it again to pay the face value of the bank drafts would amount to Llorente's unjust enrichment to its prejudice. [63] As another ground, EPCIB argues that SCPL and EPCIB have no privity of contract as they never transacted with each other.[64] Invoking the basic principle of relativity of contracts, EPCIB states that it would be highly iniquitous if it is made liable in any way for whatever controversy that arose between SCPL and Llorente.[65] Given the foregoing, EPCIB has apparently abandoned its arguments before the CA that: (1) SCPL is not a holder in due course because it took the subject bank drafts without any value since the funds corresponding thereto had been withdrawn by Llorente, and (2) SCPL cannot be considered in good faith because of Llorente's averment regarding the impossibility of having no face cards coming out of several deals despite a considerable amount of time.[66] The CA has rejected the said arguments and admitted that SCPL is a holder in due course, viz.: Section 52 of the [NIL] gives the conditions in order to consider [a] person as a holder in due course, to wit: "SEC. 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. - A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good [faith] and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity or defect in the title of [the] person negotiating it." As a general rule, under the above provision, every holder is presumed prima facie to be a holder in due course. One who claims otherwise has the onus probandi to prove that one or more of the conditions required to https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 10/22