11/15/2017 GR No.

L-47362

Today is Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Custom Search

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

IN BANC

GR No. L-47362 December 19, 1940

JUAN F. VILLARROEL, appellant-appellant,

vs.
BERNARDINO ESTRADA, appealed-appealed.

D. Felipe Agoncillo in representation of the appellant-appelant.

D. Crispin Oben in representation of the appealed-appellant.

AVANCEA, Pres .:

On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, the mother of the defendant Juan F. Villarroel, obtained from the Mariano
Estrada and Severina spouses a loan of P1,000 payable after seven years (Exhibit A). Alejandra passed away,
leaving the defendant as the sole heir. The spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina also died, leaving the plaintiff
Bernardino Estrada as the sole heir. On August 9, 1930, the defendant signed a document (Exhibit B) declaring the
applicant P1,000 in duty, with an interest of 12 percent per year. This action is about the collection of this amount.

The Court of First Instance of Laguna, in which this action was filed, ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the
amount claimed of P1,000 with its legal interests of 12 percent a year from August 9, 1930 to its full payment.
Appeal of this sentence.

It will be noted that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the sole heirs of the original creditors and the
debtor. This action is exercised by virtue of the obligation that the defendant, as the only son of the original debtor,
contracted in favor of the plaintiff, the only heir of the original creditors. It is admitted that the amount of P1,000 to
which this obligation is contracted is the same debt of the defendant's mother to the parents of the plaintiff. lawphil.net

Although the action to recover the original debt has already prescribed when the claim was filed in this case, the
question that arises in this appeal is mainly the question of whether, notwithstanding such a prescription, the action
is appropriate. However, the present action is not based on the original obligation contracted by the defendant's
mother, which has already been prescribed, but on the one contracted by the defendant on August 9, 1930 (Exhibit
B) upon assuming compliance with that obligation, already prescribed. The defendant being the sole heir of the
original debtor, with the right to succeed him in his inheritance, that debt legally brought by his mother, although it
lost its effectiveness by prescription, is now, for him, a moral obligation,

The rule that a new promise to pay a prescreened debt must be made by the same obligated person or by another
legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case in which it is not required compliance with the obligation
of the obligor originally, but which you des voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation.

The sentence appealed is confirmed, with the costs to the appellant. This is how it is ordered.

Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, MM., Are satisfied.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1940/dec1940/gr_l-47362_1940.html 1/1