GR L 14357; (August, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14357; August 31, 1960
JOHANNA H. BORROMEO, claimant-appellee, vs. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR., oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in the intestate estate proceedings of Buenaventura Zaballero. The order approved the claim of Johanna H. Borromeo based on a promissory note dated May 8, 1935, executed by the deceased, Buenaventura Zaballero, for P2,800.00 with 10% annual interest, maturing on May 8, 1937. The claim was filed on September 14, 1955. The oppositor-appellant, Ezequiel Zaballero, Sr., an heir, contested the claim on the ground of prescription, arguing that more than ten years had elapsed since the cause of action accrued. The trial court approved the claim, relying on the nature of the stipulation in the note, the deceased’s repeated oral acknowledgments of the debt, and his oral promises to pay it from the proceeds of his father’s estate distribution.
ISSUE
Whether the action to enforce the promissory note is barred by the statute of limitations.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred by prescription. The order approving the claim is reversed, and the claim is ordered dismissed.
The promissory note matured on May 8, 1937. The claim was filed on September 14, 1955, a period of over 18 years. Deducting the moratorium period (from March 10, 1945, to July 26, 1948, for debtors without war damage claims) of 3 years, 4 months, and 16 days, leaves over 14 years and 11 months. The governing law when prescription started in 1937 was Act No. 190 (the old Code of Civil Procedure), which provided a ten-year prescriptive period for written contracts. Under Section 50 of Act No. 190 , only a written acknowledgment or promise to pay a debt could renew the right of action or interrupt the prescriptive period. The deceased’s repeated oral acknowledgments and promises to pay, relied upon by the trial court, were insufficient under this law. The purpose of requiring a writing was to avoid uncertainty. No new contemporaneous consideration was given for these oral promises; the debtor merely promised to pay the old debt at a future time, and the creditor gave no value for her forbearance. Therefore, the prescriptive period was not renewed or interrupted, and the claim is barred.