G.R. No. 43429; October 24, 1938
BENITO GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO DE JOSE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Benito Gonzalez filed an action to recover the amounts due under two promissory notes executed by defendant Florentino de Jose in 1922. The notes stated the sums were payable “as soon as possible” but did not specify a fixed maturity date. The defendant interposed the defense of prescription, arguing the action had prescribed. The trial court applied Article 1128 of the Civil Code, held the action had not prescribed, and ordered the defendant to pay. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the action to enforce the promissory notes has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The obligations under the notes, payable “as soon as possible,” are governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code, as the creditor intended to grant the debtor a period to pay, but the period was not fixed. Under this article, it is the court’s duty to fix the period. However, the separate action to ask the court to fix such a period is subject to prescription under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides a ten-year prescriptive period. More than ten years had elapsed from the execution of the notes in 1922 until the filing of the action in 1934. Consequently, the action had prescribed. The defendant was absolved from the complaint.

AI Generated by Armztrong.