GR L 24997; (July, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TERESITA OSETE, JOSE CRESPO and ESTELITA CUYA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila on January 30, 1963, to recover a sum of money from Teresita Osete, Jose Crespo, and Estelita Cuya based on a judgment rendered in civil case No. 23442 of the same court dated January 8, 1953. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to Teresita Osete due to non-service of summons. Estelita Cuya and Jose Crespo separately pleaded prescription of action. The municipal court rendered judgment against Cuya and Crespo. Crespo appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, reproducing his answer pleading prescription. After a pre-trial, PNB filed an amended complaint, the admission of which was denied by the CFI. The CFI later issued an order dismissing the case on the ground of prescription of action. PNB appealed, arguing that the prescriptive period was interrupted by written demands and partial payments.
ISSUE
Whether the action to revive the judgment had prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s order of dismissal. The decision of the municipal court became final and executory on January 23, 1953. More than ten years had elapsed when the action to revive it was commenced on January 30, 1963. The written demands relied upon by PNB were addressed to Estelita Cuya, not to Jose Crespo (the appealing defendant), and were not alleged in the complaint. The alleged partial payments were not alleged in the original complaint, and the CFI did not err in denying the admission of the amended complaint that sought to allege them, as it would have substantially changed the issue on appeal. Furthermore, under Article 1155 of the Civil Code, only a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor or a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor interrupts prescription; a partial payment, unless coupled with a written communication from the debtor, does not interrupt the period. The Court also noted that Article 1155 refers to the tolling of prescription for an action to collect a debt, not an action to enforce or revive a judgment. The CFI acted within its discretion in denying the amendment of the complaint after issues were joined and pre-trial held.