Facts: Suga and V were friends of long standing having known each other since 2000. In February 2020, Suga obtained a loan from V, in the tune of P250,000.00 embodied in a promissory note with stipulations that failure on the part of Suga to pay the amount on December 31, 2020, he agrees to pay 5% interest monthly from the date of default (January 1 2021). Three years have passed from the maturity date, when Suga issued two (2) checks in favor of V as payment for the loan, which, upon presentment, were dishonored for the reason "account closed." In their collection suit, V alleged that they have repeatedly demanded payment from Suga to no avail. In his answer, Suga claimed forgery of the subject promissory note and denied his indebtedness thereunder. From the Metropolitan Trial Court to the Court of Appeals, the monetary claim of V was sustained.

Issue: Whether or not a demand from V is needed to make Suga liable? Explain your ruling concisely.