GR L 16463; (January, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16463 January 30, 1965
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HERMOGENES HIPOLITO and LEONOR JUNSAY, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint on June 18, 1959, against Hermogenes Hipolito and Leonor Junsay to recover a balance from various sugar crop loans obtained in 1941, evidenced by promissory notes. The complaint alleged that after partial payments, a balance of P6,786.39 plus accrued interest remained, totaling P11,999.73 as of January 17, 1957. PNB further alleged that despite repeated demands, defendants failed to pay, but on May 7, 1957, defendants went to PNB’s branch attorney and offered a plan of payment, which did not materialize. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription. They attached a joint affidavit denying they made any acknowledgment or offer of payment and maintained the action had prescribed. PNB opposed, contending prescription was suspended by Executive Order No. 32 (the Moratorium Law) and interrupted by written extrajudicial demands and defendants’ acknowledgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the ten-year prescriptive period started from the last promissory note date (June 23, 1941), was suspended only for the period EO 32 was in force, and had prescribed by November 8, 1953, before the complaint was filed. It also held that the alleged letters of demand lacked proof of receipt and that defendant Hipolito’s answering letter of February 16, 1959, did not constitute an acknowledgment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription based solely on the motion to dismiss and supporting affidavit.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for trial. The Court held that in a motion to dismiss, the defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleged an offer of a plan of payment on May 7, 1957, which, if hypothetically admitted, would constitute a renewal of the obligation and interrupt prescription. Defendants’ denial in their joint affidavit of merit presented a contrary averment of fact proper for an answer, not a motion to dismiss, as it would require presentation of evidence. Since the ground for dismissal (prescription) was not indubitable, the lower court should have deferred its determination until after a trial on the merits.