G.R. No. L-11413, October 28, 1916
FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RAYMUNDO SORIANO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On November 29, 1889, Raymundo Soriano borrowed P6,600 from Cornelia Laochangco, payable in one year (by May 1890) in sugar, with an option for the creditor to extend the term for another year. To secure the debt, Soriano executed a mortgage on April 29, 1889. After Laochangco’s death, her heirs filed an action on November 2, 1910, to recover the debt and foreclose the mortgage. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs, but on appeal, the Supreme Court initially affirmed then granted a rehearing upon discovering that not all necessary heirs were parties. The case was remanded, and an amended complaint including all heirs was filed on April 28, 1915. Soriano raised prescription as a defense, arguing the action was barred. The lower court dismissed the complaint on prescription grounds, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the action to enforce the mortgage debt had prescribed.

RULING:
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Court held:
1. The debt was payable in May 1890, with a possible one-year extension at the creditor’s election. No evidence showed the creditor expressly extended the term. Thus, the action accrued on June 1, 1890, when default occurred.
2. Under Article 1964 of the Civil Code, the prescription period for mortgage enforcement is 20 years from accrual. Counting from June 1, 1890, the period expired on June 1, 1910. The original complaint filed on November 2, 1910, was beyond this period.
3. While the filing of the original complaint interrupted prescription for the original plaintiffs, the amended complaint adding new plaintiffs in 1915 could not revive the barred action. For these new parties, more than ten years had also elapsed since the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ), further barring the claim.
The lower court’s dismissal was affirmed. Costs against the plaintiffs.