GR No.

L-47362
lawphil.net /judjuris/juri1940/dec1940/gr_l-47362_1940.html

Today is Monday, November 27, 2017

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.

AVANCEÑA, Pres .:

On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, the mother of the defendant Juan F. Villarroel, obtained from
the Mariano Estrada and Severina spouses to 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 his 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 one 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 been filed 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 filed 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

1/2
with that obligation, . The defendant being the sole heir of the original debtor, with the right to
succeed him in his inheritance, that debt legally brought about by his mother, although it is its
effectiveness by prescription, is now, however, 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 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 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

2/2