4. As a return of her investment, businessman X drew and issued in the name of Mylene a BPI check dated July 30, 2021 valued at $US1,000.00. The said check was drawn by X against his Dollar Account at BPI which at the time of issuance contains just exactly its maintaining balance of $US1,000.00. On the declared due date however, Mylene indorsed and delivered the check as payment to Jack, a 17-year-old trader of Class C luxury bags, to forge and start-up her own online business.

QUESTION:If the check was dishonored by the bank, which of the following is a correct analogy?

a) Jack can enforce the instrument against all parties concerned because he possesses all the rights of a holder-in-due-course;

b) Jack cannot enforce the instrument against all parties concerned because aside from the fact that the issued check is invalid from the start, it is also non-negotiable and the transfer thereof to him is likewise invalid;

c) Jack cannot enforce the instrument against all parties concerned because although the check is valid from the start, but he is a minor and he has no legal capacity to contract under the law;

d) Jack cannot enforce the instrument against all parties concerned because although the check is valid from the start, but he does not qualify as a holder-in-due-course and he cannot exercise its rights under the law;

e) Both C and D.

JURISDICTION: PHILIPPINES. PLEASE SITE LEGAL BASIS (ARTICLE NUMBER)