In payment for his loan to Harold, debtor Juan executed and signed a promissory note dated January 05, 2020 containing provisions which read as follows: "I promise to pay the order of Harold S. Lee the cash amount of P50,000.00 with legal interest on March 10, 2020". Come due date, Harold failed to timely collect the said amount from Juan due to overwhelming work schedules. It was only on November 2020 that he remembered and decided to collect but unfortunately, he suffered from fatal heart attack that caused his untimely death without opportunity to indorse the instrument. On March 2021, Jayson, the sole child and heir of Harold, appeared before Juan and is collecting the amount under the promissory note. QUESTION: Which of the following is a correct analogy?

a) Jayson can validly collect from Juan because the instrument is negotiable in character and the fact that the original payee thereof had already died, its subsequent possession by the declared payee's legal heir is already sufficient as equivalent to a valid form of virtual indorsement.

b) Jayson can validly collect from Juan because the declared payee of the instrument who is his father had already died and by virtue of succession, he already inherited the right to collect thereunder, with or without indorsement.

c) Jayson cannot validly collect from Juan because the declared payee (Harold) had already died, therefore the obligation of Juan as the maker under the instrument is already extinguished in accordance with law.

d) Jayson cannot validly collect from Juan because since the promissory note is negotiable in character, the only way for it to be transferred to another person is by way of proper indorsement and in this case, Harold obviously failed to indorse the instrument in favor of Jayson.

e) Both A and B.

JURISDICTION: PHILIPPINES. PLEASE INCLUDE ARTICLE NUMBER