GR No.

L-47362 December 19, 1940

JUAN F. VILLARROEL, appellant-appellant,

vs.
BERNARDINO ESTRADA, appealed-appealed.

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 a 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 its 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 son 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 prescribed 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 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 with that obligation, already prescribed. Being the
defendant the only heir of the original debtor, with the right to succeed her in her
inheritance, that debt legally brought by her mother, although it lost its effectiveness by
prescription, is now, however, for the moral obligation, which is considered enough to
create and make effective and enforceable its obligation voluntarily contracted on August 9,
1930 in Exhibit B.

The rule that a new promise to pay a prescreened debt must be made by the same obligated
person or by another legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case in which
compliance with the obligation of the obligor is not required, but which you des voluntarily
wanted to assume this obligation.

The sentence appealed is confirmed, with the costs to the appellant. This is how it is
ordered.