Swagman Hotel, Inc.

vs Court of Appeals
GR 161135 Apr 8 2005
Full Text
Facts:
Swagman Hotel, Inc., through its representatives, obtained from Neal a loan which is payable after 3
years and with interest per annum payable every 3 months. After a year, Swagman suffered
business reverses prompting it to renegotiate the terms of the loan with Neal. It was agreed that
Neal waives the payment of interests and that the principal loan shall be paid every month instead of
quarterly. After the renegotiation, the cash vouchers or receipts acknowledged by the parties state
that the payments therein represent Capital Investment and Capital Repayment.

Barely 2 years after however, Neal sent a letter informing the corporation that he is terminating the
loans and demanding that the total amount of the loan and unpaid interests be paid. Subsequently,
Neal filed a complaint for sum of money and damages. Swagman answered that the complaint is
dismissible for lack of cause of action since the loan is not yet due and demandable and that there
was novation in the contract. But the RTC held in favor of Neal, rationating that although there was
no cause of action at the filing of the complaint, the debt has already matured during the days the
hearings were held, thus making it due as of date.

Issue 1: W/N a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual
of a cause of action during the pendency of the case
No. Jurisprudence states that unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the
time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual
of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such
after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. (Surigao Mines vs Harris, 1935)

Issue 2: W/N there was novation in the terms of the promissory notes
Yes. Under Article 1253 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that if the debt produces interest,
payments were applied first to the interest before the principal. But in this case, the receipts
describing the payments as capital repayment show that obligation to pay the interest was no longer
subsisting. The receipts prove that the payments were for the principal loans and that the interests
were waived by Neal. There was therefore a novation of the terms of the loan.

The resulting novation in this case was of the modificatory type, not the extinctive type, since the
obligation to pay a sum of money remains in force. Thus, since Swagman did not renege on its
obligation to pay the monthly installments conformably with their new agreement and even continued
paying during the pendency of the case, Neal had no cause of action to file the complaint. It is only
upon debtors default in the payment of the monthly amortizations that a cause of action would arise
and give the creditor a right to maintain an action against the petitioner. ##