Final answer:
C cannot enforce the altered note against any party due to the forged endorsement by F, which breaks the chain of title. B does not obtain a valid title to pass to C, rendering the present situation unenforceable for C.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question relates to a scenario involving a negotiable instrument that has been subjected to fraud and forgery. M creates a promissory note for P10,000 payable to C, who endorses it to A. F then fraudulently obtains the note, forges A's endorsement, alters the amount to P70,000, and endorses it to B, who subsequently endorses it to C. C's ability to enforce the note depends on the legal protections afforded to holders and whether C is a holder in due course.
If C is considered a holder in due course, C would be protected from defenses arising from prior parties except for real defenses such as forgery. However, since A's endorsement to B was forged by F, there is a break in the chain of title. A forged endorsement is ineffective as if it never occurred. Therefore, B never legally obtained the title to the note and could not pass a valid title to C. Answering the options given:
- C cannot enforce the note against any party to the note because of the break in the chain of title due to the forged endorsement.
Even though C originally had rights to enforce the original P10,000 note, the forged alteration and subsequent endorsements prevent C from enforcing the altered note against any of the parties mentioned in the scenario.