Incomplete Loan Instrument and Admissibility of Evidence to Challenge Its Validity
Issue of Incomplete Loan Instrument and Admissibility of Evidence to Challenge Its Validity
In an action brought by Mr. Sap against Mr. Sin to recover money allegedly due under a loan agreement, Mr. Sin may validly adduce evidence in support of his defense that the instrument relied upon by the plaintiff was incomplete and legally defective. The facts indicate that Mr. Sap had originally delivered money to Mr. Sin for gambling purposes and subsequently procured Mr. Sin’s signature on a loan document that had not yet been filled in with the amount of money or the date. Thereafter, Mr. Sap inserted the date and the amount and filed the present lawsuit on the basis of that document.
In these circumstances, Mr. Sin is entitled to prove the true origin and condition of the document. Such evidence is not regarded as evidence contradicting the written instrument by alleging a different intention from that expressed therein. Rather, it is evidence directed to the legal foundation and validity of the alleged loan agreement itself, namely that the contract was incomplete and not perfected in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the defense is admissible because it concerns the formation and enforceability of the loan instrument, not a mere attempt to vary the terms of an otherwise valid written contract. This principle is consistent with Supreme Court Decision No. 1104/2518 and the final paragraph of Section 94.