GR L 3549; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951
BERNARDO P. TIMBOL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIA KABAKAW alias MARIA ABRERA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Bernardo P. Timbol, filed an action to collect a debt. The complaint alleged that during the years 1943 and 1944, the defendant, Maria Kabakaw, borrowed various sums of money from him aggregating P5,600. The debt was payable “after the liberation after receiving, from the United States Government, the back pay of her deceased husband, Capt. James Kabakaw, of the United States Army.” Although the defendant had already collected the said back pay, she refused to pay her debt. The defendant invoked the moratorium on money obligations and moved for the dismissal of the action. The lower court granted the motion and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice to filing another action once authorized by law. The plaintiff appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the action for the collection of the debt, which was contracted during the years 1943 and 1944 (during the war), is barred by the subsisting moratorium on war-time debts.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. Executive Orders provided a moratorium on all monetary obligations contracted before or during the last world war. While Republic Act No. 342 lifted the moratorium for pre-war debts, it did not lift the moratorium for debts contracted during the war. Since the defendant’s debt was incurred in 1943 and 1944, it fell under the category of war-time debts still covered by the moratorium. The lower court’s error in declaring Republic Act No. 342 unconstitutional was immaterial, as the correct result (dismissal based on the subsisting moratorium) was reached. The Court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the loans were advances on inheritance and thus not subject to moratorium, stating that the rule exempting subsistence allowances for heirs from moratorium could not be invoked by a creditor seeking collection. The constitutionality of Republic Act No. 342 was not passed upon.