7/3/2015

G.R. No. L-29900

TodayisFriday,July03,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L29900June28,1974
INTHEMATTEROFTHEINTESTATEESTATEOFJUSTOPALANCA,Deceased,GEORGEPAY,petitioner
appellant,
vs.
SEGUNDINACHUAVDA.DEPALANCA,oppositorappellee.
FlorentinoB.delRosarioforpetitionerappellant.
ManuelV.SanJoseforoppositorappellee.

FERNANDO,J.:p
Thereisnodifficultyattendingthedispositionofthisappealbypetitioneronquestionsoflaw.Whileseveralpoints
were raised, the decisive issue is whether a creditor is barred by prescription in his attempt to collect on a
promissorynoteexecutedmorethanfifteenyearsearlierwiththedebtorsuedpromisingtopayeitheruponreceipt
byhimofhissharefromacertainestateorupondemand,thebasisfortheactionbeingthelatteralternative.The
lower court held that the tenyear period of limitation of actions did apply, the note being immediately due and
demandable,thecreditoradmittingexpresslythathewasrelyingonthewording"upondemand."Ontheabovefacts
asfound,andwiththelawbeingasitis,itcannotbesaidthatitsdecisionisinfectedwitherror.Weaffirm.
From the appealed decision, the following appears: "The parties in this case agreed to submit the matter for
resolution on the basis of their pleadings and annexes and their respective memoranda submitted. Petitioner
GeorgePayisacreditoroftheLateJustoPalancawhodiedinManilaonJuly3,1963.Theclaimofthepetitioneris
basedonapromissorynotedatedJanuary30,1952,wherebythelateJustoPalancaandRosaGonzalesVda.de
CarlosPalancapromisedtopayGeorgePaytheamountofP26,900.00,withinterestthereonattherateof12%per
annum.GeorgePayisnowbeforethisCourt,askingthatSegundinaChuavda.dePalanca,survivingspouseofthe
late Justo Palanca, he appointed as administratrix of a certain piece of property which is a residential dwelling
locatedat2656TaftAvenue,Manila,coveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.3114inthenameofJustoPalanca,assessed
atP41,800.00.Theideaisthatoncesaidpropertyisbroughtunderadministration,GeorgePay,ascreditor,canfile
hisclaimagainsttheadministratrix."1Itthenstatedthatthepetitioncouldnotprosperastherewasarefusalonthepartof
SegundinaChuaVda.dePalancatobeappointedasadministratrixthatthepropertysoughttobeadministerednolonger
belonged to the debtor, the late Justo Palanca and that the rights of petitionercreditor had already prescribed. The
promissorynote,datedJanuary30,1962,iswordedthus:"`Forvaluereceivedfromtimetotimesince1947,we[jointlyand
severally promise to] pay to Mr. [George Pay] at his office at the China Banking Corporation the sum of [Twenty Six
ThousandNineHundredPesos](P26,900.00),withinterestthereonattherateof12%perannumuponreceiptbyeitherof
the undersigned of cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand'. . . . As stated, this
promissorynoteissignedbyRosaGonzalesVda.deCarlosPalancaandJustoPalanca."2Thencamethisparagraph:"The
Courthasinquiredwhetheranycashpaymenthasbeenreceivedbyeitherofthesignersofthispromissorynotefromthe
Estate of the late Carlos Palanca. Petitioner informed that he does not insist on this provision but that petitioner is only
claimingonhisrightunderthepromissorynote."3Afterwhich,cametherulingthatthewordingofthepromissorynotebeing
"upondemand,"theobligationwasimmediatelydue.SinceitwasdatedJanuary30,1952,itwasclearthatmore"thanten
(10)yearshasalreadytranspiredfromthattimeuntiltodate.Theaction,therefore,ofthecreditorhasdefinitelyprescribed."
4Theresult,asabovenoted,wasthedismissalofthepetition.

In an exhaustive brief prepared by Attorney Florentino B. del Rosario, petitioner did assail the correctness of the
rulings of the lower court as to the effect of the refusal of the surviving spouse of the late Justo Palanca to be
appointedasadministratrix,astothepropertysoughttobeadministerednolongerbelongingtothedebtor,thelate
JustoPalanca,andastotherightsofpetitionercreditorhavingalreadyprescribed.Asnotedattheoutset,onlythe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jun1974/gr_l_29900_1974.html

1/2

7/3/2015

G.R. No. L-29900

questionofprescriptionneeddetainusinthedispositionofthisappeal.Likewise,asintimated,thedecisionmustbe
affirmed,consideringthecleartenorofthepromissorynote.
Fromthemannerinwhichthepromissorynotewasexecuted,itwouldappearthatpetitionerwashopefulthatthe
satisfactionofhiscreditcouldherealizedeitherthroughthedebtorsuedreceivingcashpaymentfromtheestateof
the late Carlos Palanca presumptively as one of the heirs, or, as expressed therein, "upon demand." There is
nothingintherecordthatwouldindicatewhetherornotthefirstalternativewasfulfilled.Whatisundeniableisthat
onAugust26,1967,morethanfifteenyearsaftertheexecutionofthepromissorynoteonJanuary30,1952,this
petitionwasfiled.Thedefenseinterposedwasprescription.Itsmeritisratherobvious.Article1179oftheCivilCode
provides:"Everyobligationwhoseperformancedoesnotdependuponafutureoruncertainevent,oruponapast
event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once." This used to be Article 1113 of the Spanish Civil Code of
1889.AsfarbackasFlorianov.Delgado,5a1908decision,ithasbeenappliedaccordingtoitsexpresslanguage.The
wellknownSpanishcommentator,Manresa,onthispoint,states:"Dejandoconacierto,elcaractermasteoricoygraficodel
acto,osealaperfecciondeeste,sefija,paradeterminarelconceptodelaobligacionpura,eneldistinctivedeesta,yquees
consecuenciadeaquel:laexigibilidadimmediata."6

Theobligationbeingdueanddemandable,itwouldappearthatthefilingofthesuitafterfifteenyearswasmuchtoo
late.Foragain,accordingtotheCivilCode,whichisbasedonSection43ofActNo.190,theprescriptiveperiodfor
awrittencontractisthatoftenyears.7ThisisanotherinstancewherethisCourthasconsistentlyadheredtotheexpress
languageoftheapplicablenorm.8Thereisnonecessitythereforeofpassingupontheotherlegalquestionsastowhetheror
notitdidsufficeforthepetitiontofailjustbecausethesurvivingspouserefusestobemadeadministratrix,orjustbecause
theestatewasleftwithnootherproperty.Thedecisionofthelowercourtcannotbeoverturned.

WHEREFORE,thelowercourtdecisionofJuly24,1968isaffirmed.CostsagainstGeorgePay.
Zaldivar(Chairman),Barredo,Antonio,FernandezandAquino,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Decision,RecordonAppeal,4647.
2Ibid,4849.
3Ibid,49.
4Ibid.
511Phil.154.
6VIIIManresa,CodigoCivilEspaol,Quintaedicion,305(1950)..
7Article1144oftheCivilcodeprovides:"Thefollowingactionsmustbebroughtwithintenyearsfrom
thetimetherightofactionaccrues:(1)Uponawrittencontract(2)Uponanobligationcreatedbylaw
(3)Uponajudgment."
8Cf.Azarragav.Rodriguez,9Phil.637(1908)Brillantesv.Margarejo,36Phil.202(1917)Agoncillo
v.Javier,38Phil.424(1918)Sarmientov.Javellana,43Phil.880(1922)BanKiatandCo.v.Atkins,
KrollandCo.,44Phil.4(1922)F.M.YapTicoandCo.v.LopezVito,49Phil.61(1926)Parksv.
ProvinceofTarlac,49Phil.142(1926)HospiciodeSanJosev.FidelityandSuretyCo.,52Phil.926
(1929)LuteroSuiliongandCo.,54Phil.272(1930)DeBorjav.DeBorja,58Phil.811(1933)
InternationalBankingCorp.v.Yared,59Phil.72(1933)Barrettov.Tuason,59Phil.845(1934)Hijos
deF.Escanov.Nazareno,60Phil.104(1934)Matutev.Matute,62Phil.676(1935)Cunananv.De
Antepasado.L16169.Aug31,1962,5SCRA1028GeneralInsuranceandSuretyCorp.v.Republic,
L13873,Jan.31,1963,7SCRA4.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jun1974/gr_l_29900_1974.html

2/2