G.R. No. 38479 ; November 20, 1933
QUINTIN DE BORJA, judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Marcelo de BORJA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO DE BORJA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, as judicial administrator of the estate of Marcelo de Borja, filed an action to recover P61,376.56 from the defendant, Francisco de Borja, representing sums of money loaned to and collected by the defendant for the deceased. The defendant filed counterclaims for alleged debts owed to him by the deceased. The trial court found the plaintiff entitled to recover P33,218.86 from the defendant, and the defendant entitled to recover P39,683 from the plaintiff by way of counterclaim, resulting in a net judgment in favor of the defendant for P6,464.14. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendant’s counterclaims had prescribed.
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the sums handled by the defendant.
3. Whether the defendant was entitled to collect rents for the use of an earthen jar factory and buildings.

RULING

1. No, the counterclaims had not prescribed. The counterclaims were based on written instruments (Exhibits 1 to 6), and the applicable prescriptive period was ten (10) years under section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, not six years as argued by the plaintiff.
2. No, the plaintiff was not entitled to interest. The defendant acted as attorney-in-fact for the deceased. In the absence of evidence that he converted the money to his own use, he was not liable for interest under Article 1742 of the Civil Code.
3. No, the defendant was not entitled to collect rents. The trial court correctly characterized the arrangement as a gratuitous commodatum (loan for use), where the deceased was only obligated to pay taxes on the properties.
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding it supported by the evidence and in accordance with law.

AI Generated by Armztrong.