Author: Earvin James M.
Atienza
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON.
MIDPAINTAO L. ADIL, ET AL. (1989)
Petitioner: Development Bank of the Philippines;
Respondents: Hon. Midpaintao L. Adil, Judge of the 2 nd Branch of the Court
of First Instance, Iloilo; Sps. Patricion & Jovita Villafuerte –
Confesor;
Ponente: Gancayco, J.
DOCTRINE: Civil Law; Prescription of Actions; May be expressly
renounced or waived.
The right to prescription may be waived or renounced. There is no doubt that
prescription has set in as to the first promissory note of February 10, 1940.
However, when respondent Confesor executed the second promissory note
on April 11, 1961 whereby he promised to pay the amount covered by the
previous promissory note on or before June 15, 1961, and upon failure to do
so, agreed to the foreclosure of the mortgage, said respondent thereby
effectively and expressly renounced and waived his right to the prescription
of the action covering the first promissory note. This is not a mere case of
acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to pay the
debt. The consideration of the new promissory note is the pre-existing
obligation under the first promissory note. The statutory limitation bars the
remedy but does not discharge the debt.
Family Relations; Conjugal Partnership of Gains; Husband as
Administrator Binds the Partnership for All Debts and Obligations
Contracted by Him;
Under Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the
conjugal partnership. As such administrator, all debts and obligations
contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, are
chargeable to the conjugal partnership. No doubt, in this case, respondent
Confesor signed the second promissory note for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation.
FACTS:
1. On 10 February 1940, Sps. Confesor obtained an agricultural loan
from Agricultural & Industrial Bank (AIB), now the Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP) for the sum of Php 2,000.00, evidenced by a
promissory note of said date whereby they bound themselves jointly
and severally to pay the account in ten (10) equal yearly
amortizations;
2. The obligation remained unpaid until after the 10-year period leading
Rep. Confesor to execute a 2nd promissory note on 11 April 1961
expressly acknowledging the 1st PN and promising to pay on or
before 15 June 1961, with the following clause included:
I hereby promise to pay the amount covered by my
promissory note on or before 15 June 1961. Upon
my failure to do so, I hereby agree to the foreclosure
of my mortgage. It is understood that if I can secure
a certificate of indebtedness from the government of
my back pay I will be allowed to pay the amount out
of it.
3. Still failing to pay the PN, DBP sued the Spouses on 17 September
1970 before City Court of Iloilo City. Trial on the merits ensued and
led to the Decision dated 27 December 1976 which ordered the
spouses to pay DBP the amount of Php 5,760.96 plus additional
daily interest of Php 1.04 from date of Complaint until paid, jointly
and severally;
4. Defendants appealed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) which
later rendered a Decision on 28 April 1978 reversing the City Court of
Iloilo and dismissing the complaint;
5. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by plaintiff but later on
denied. Hence, the instant Petition.
ISSUES:
WON Spouses Confesor were obliged to pay DBP despite prescription of the
right of action.
PROVISION: Article 1112, Chapter 1, Title V, New Civil Code [R.A. 386,
as amended]
Article 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce
prescription already obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future.
Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation
results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.
RULING + RATIO:
Yes. Sps. Confesor were obliged to pay DBP despite prescription of the right
of action.
 The Court ruled:
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
x x x There is no doubt that prescription has set in
as to the first promissory note of February 10, 1940.
However, when respondent Confesor executed the
second promissory note on April 11, 1961 whereby
he promised to pay the amount covered by the
previous promissory note on or before June 15,
1961, and upon failure to do so, agreed to the
foreclosure of the mortgage, said respondent
thereby effectively and expressly renounced and
waived his right to the prescription of the action
covering the first promissory note. x x x

(emphasis supplied)

 Contrary to the lower court’s ruling, the High Court further held that
Rep. Confesor’s wife is bound by the same PN since the former
undoubtedly signed the 2nd PN for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership, pursuant to Article 166 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, as amended.

DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED.