PNB v OSETE However, the court fond that the written demands were not addressed to Crespo

GR NO. L-24997 but rather to Cuya, who did not appeal the decision of the lower court. Hence, it
July 18, 1968 has nothing to do with the running prescription as regards to Crespo.
By: Gayares
Topic: Prescription As to the alleged prtial payments, Art. 1973 of the CC of Spain provided, “The
Petitioners: Philippine National Bank prescription of actions is interrupted by the commencement of a suit for their
Respondents: Teresita Osete, Jose Crespo, Estelita Cuya enforcement, by an extra-judicial demand by the creditor, and by any act of
Ponente: Concepcion, C.J. acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor.”

Under the said article, partial payment could act as an acknowledgement of debt
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: PNB filed a case against Crespo for collection. PNB
and interrupt the prescriptive period. However, it was amended by Art. 1155 of the
claimned that no prescription can be availed since it was interrupted. SC ruled
CC of the Philippines, “The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed
based on the following reasons enumerated in the ruling. Crespo won.
before the court, when there is a written extra-judicial demand by the creditors
and when there is any written acknowledgment by the debtor.”
DOCTRINE:
Not all acts of acknowledgment of a debt interrupt prescription. To produce such
Under this provision, not all acts of acknowledgment of a debt interrupt
effect, acknowledgment must be written so that payment, if not coupled with a
prescription. To produce interruption, the acknowledgment must be written, so
communication signed by the payor, would not interrupt the running period of
that payment, if not coupled with a communication signed by the payor, would not
prescription.
interrupt the running of the period of prescription.
FACTS:
In this case, it was right that the lower court did not allow PNB to present new
● PNB commenced this action to recover from the respondents the sum of
evidence during the course of the trial since it would alter the issue greatly. The
P522, with interest, attorney’s fees and costs, based upon a judgment in
current issue is “w/n more than 10 years had elapsed when the present action was
a civil case, which was held on January 8, 1953.
instituted?” If the new evidence were admitted, it would be “w/n the prescription
● Cuya and Crespo pleaded prescription of action, whereas the complaint
period was interrupted by the partial payments allegedly made by Crespo?”
was dismissed without prejudice.
● The court rendered judgment in favor of PNB.
Therefore, the lower court did not err in the following:
● Crespo appealed to the CFI.
1. In not admitting the new complaint of PNB, which contained new
● CFI: Ruled in favor of Crespo based on the ground of prescription.
evidence that would alter the issue greatly;
2. In not considering that written demands had tolled the running of the
ISSUE:
prescription period since such demands were not addressed to Crespo;
W/N the lower court erred in favoring Crespo and dismissing the action of PNB
3. In not considering that prescription was interrupted by partial payments
upon the ground of prescription of action?
allegedly made by Crespo; and even if they were considered, it would still
not have produced the said interruption pursuant to Art. 1155 of the CC;
HELD/RATIO:
4. In not resolving the issue in favor of PNB;
NO - It should be noted that the decision of the municipal court became final and
5. In not giving Art. 1155 the said effect PNB wished for it to have.
executory on January 1953. More than ten years had elapsed when this action was
commenced since this was initiated on January 30, 1963.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against PNB.
PNB alleges that the running of the said period was interrupted by written
demands and partial payments even if such evidence were not admitted in the
lower court. In other words, no evidence was introduced.