GR L 22675; (March, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On February 3, 1953, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) obtained a judgment against Pacific Commission House in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 14799) for three separate sums with legal interest. On May 31, 1963, PNB filed a complaint to revive this judgment and recover the sums adjudged. The defendant was declared in default for failure to answer. During the hearing for the reception of PNB’s evidence, PNB did not introduce evidence as to the date of the entry of the 1953 judgment. The trial court, noting the complaint was filed on May 31, 1963, and finding no evidence that the judgment was entered within ten years prior to that filing date, dismissed the complaint motu proprio. PNB moved for reconsideration, arguing the defense of prescription was waived as it was not raised by the defendant, and that a partial payment made on September 29, 1954, interrupted the prescriptive period. The motion was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court may motu proprio dismiss an action for revival of judgment on the ground of prescription despite the defendant’s failure to raise such defense.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The general rule under Rule 9, Section 2, that defenses not pleaded are deemed waived, does not apply when the plaintiff’s own allegation or evidence clearly shows the action has prescribed, and no issue of fact is involved. Here, the judgment was rendered on February 3, 1953, and the action to revive it was filed on May 31, 1963, which is more than ten years later. PNB did not deny this finding. Furthermore, the alleged partial payment on September 29, 1954, does not interrupt the prescriptive period for an action to revive a judgment. Under Article 1155 of the Civil Code, only a written acknowledgment interrupts prescription, and such interruption applies to actions based on contract or law, not to actions based on a final and executory judicial decree. A judgment may be enforced by execution within the prescribed period, and an acknowledgment or partial payment does not affect the prescriptive period for an action to revive it. Therefore, the action had prescribed, and the dismissal was proper.