Today is Sunday, November 13, 2011

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
GR No. L-47362 December 19, 1940
JOHN F. VILLARROEL, relapsing-Appellant,
vs.
ESTRADA BERNARDINO, turned-appellee.
D. Felipe Agoncillo in representation of the appellant-appelante.
D. Crispin Oben in representation of the used-appellee.
AVANCEA, CJ:
On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, the mother of defendant John F. Villarroel, obtained from the spouses Mariano
Estrada and Severina a loan of P1, 000 payable after seven years (Exhibit A). Alexandra died, leaving as sole heir
to the defendant. Spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina died too, leaving as sole heir to the plaintiff Bernardino
Estrada. On August 9, 1930, defendant signed a document (Exhibit B) which states a duty to the plaintiff the amount
of P1, 000 with a 12 percent interest per year. This action relates to the collection of this amount.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, which was filed this action, condemn the defendant to pay the applicant the
claimed amount of P1, 000 with legal interest of 12 percent a year since the August 9, 1930 until full payment. He
appealed the sentence.
He noticed that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the only heirs of the creditors and the original
debtor. This action is brought under the defendant's liability as the only son of the original debtor for the plaintiff
contracted, only primitive loa heir creditors. It is recognized that the amount of P1, 000 to which contracts this
obligation is the same debt of the mother of the defendant to the plaintiff parents. Lawp hi l . net
Although the action to recover the original debt has prescribed and when filed the lawsuit in this case, the question
that arises in this appeal is primarily whether, notwithstanding this limitation, it is brought from the action. However,
this action is based on the original obligation contracted by the mother of the defendant, who has already
prescribed, but in which the defendant contracted on August 9, 1930 (Exhibit B) to assume the fulfillment of that
obligation, as prescribed. Being the only defendant in the original Herderen debtor, entitled to succeed him in his
inheritance, that debt brought by his mother legally, but lost its effectiveness by prescription, it is now, however, by a
moral obligation, which is consideration sufficient to create effective and enforceable and do their duty voluntarily
contracted the August 9, 1930 in Exhibit B.
The rule that a new promise to pay a debt prrescrita must be made by the person legally obligated or otherwise
authorized by it, is not applicable to this case that does not require compliance with the mandatory obligation
Novelty, but which would give it voluntarily assume this obligation.
It confirms the original ruling, the costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, MM., Concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation