|
|
|
|
|
FELIX
ULLMAN,
G.
R.
No. 9816
March
10, 1915
-versus-
VICENTE HERNAEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ARELLANO,
C.J.:
The Complaint has, for
its object, the collection of a debt contracted by Vicente Hernaez in
favor
of Felix Ullman on April 5, 1900, amounting to 3,525 pesos Mexican
currency,
to be paid, says Hernaez, "as soon as I receive the portion that as an
heir must come to me from the estate of Juana Espinosa, widow of
Hernaez;
without prejudice to paying on it, during the time that may elapse
until
I get possession of said property, interests at six per cent a year,
but
not, however, compound interest."
On June 2, 1913, Ullman filed suit against Vicente Hernaez, alleging therein, as the fifth fact:
This fact was expressly
admitted by the defendant in the agreement of facts. Moreover, the
instrument
of indebtedness was inserted in the complaint and has not been denied
under
oath in the reply.
The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros decided the case by sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff P3,525, with interest at 6 per cent a year from April 5, 1913. But on a rehearing requested by the plaintiff the court again rendered judgment, amending the portion relating to the interest, and sentenced the defendant to pay interest on the debt on the basis of 6 per cent a year from April 5, 1900, and the costs. Defendant has appealed to this Higher Court, but has not brought up the parol evidence, only the documentary. The first
assignment
of error cannot be sustained. True it is that the defendant lacked
three
months and fifteen days when he executed the note for the sum stated,
the
price of some jewelry he had bought from the plaintiff; but he attained
his majority on July 20 of the same year 1900, and he did not then nor
in the four years following attempt to enforce the nullity that he now
assigns as a ground of error.
Neither
can the second
assignment of error be sustained. It consists in that the trial court
overlooked
the prescription of the right of action alleged as one of the
defendant's
defenses in his reply, since the right of action was not exercised from
April 5, 1905, until June 2, 1913, nor was any move made during this
time.
But a right of action that has not yet arisen cannot prescribe. In time
obligations, as that at bar, to pay "as soon as I receive the portion
that
as an heir must come to me from the estate of Juana Espinosa," the
right
of action only arises when the date fixed has arrived; the obligation
is
enforcible only when the day comes. [Civil Code, Art. 1125]. This day
arrived
on January 25, 1913, when the defendant sold to Rosendo Hernaez his
right
to inherit from Juana Espinosa and received from him P25,000, just as
if
he had received same from that estate.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs in this instance against the appellant. So ordered. Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|