G.R. No. L-20990; February 29, 1968
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AGUSTIN PARIÑA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) obtained a final judgment against Agustin Pariña on November 28, 1950, in Civil Case No. 7417. Writs of execution were issued but the judgment remained unsatisfied. On February 28, 1961, PNB filed a new action (Civil Case No. 46448) to revive the 1950 judgment. Due to Pariña’s unknown whereabouts, summons was served by publication. Pariña failed to answer and was declared in default. A court commissioner was appointed to receive PNB’s evidence. The commissioner’s report recommended dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, as the action to revive the judgment was filed more than ten years after the 1950 judgment became final. The trial court approved the report and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription motu proprio, despite the defendant being in default and not having pleaded the defense of statute of limitations.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. While the defense of prescription must generally be pleaded and is waived if not, the circumstances of this case justified the court’s motu proprio action. Since the defendant was summoned only by publication (constructive service), it could not be presumed he was actually aware of the complaint to have knowingly waived any defense. The plaintiff’s own evidence clearly showed the action was filed beyond the ten-year prescriptive period for reviving a judgment under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Articles 1144 and 1155 of the Civil Code. The court could properly act on its own initiative to protect the defendant’s right under Article 24 of the Civil Code, as he was at a disadvantage and unable to assert his defense.