Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > February 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20412 February 28, 1966 PNB v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20412. February 28, 1966.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

J.C. Jimenez for the plaintiff and Appellant.

T . Besa for the defendants and appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF, ACTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT. — A judgment which was rendered more than five years after it had become final can only be revived before it is barred by the statute of limitations, and an action for the enforcement of judgment can only be brought within 10 years from the time the judgment becomes final.

2. ID.; DISMISSAL OF ACTION TO REVIVE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION. — It is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if the same is invoked as such in the answer of the defendant and that in this particular instance no such defense was invoked because the defendant had been declared in default, but such rule does not obtain because the evidence shows that the cause of action upon which plaintiff’s complaint is based is already barred by the statute of limitations.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


The Philippine National Bank filed on March 22, 1961 before the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for revival of a judgment rendered on December 29, 1949 against Amando M. Perez. Gregorio Pumuntoc and Virginia de Pumuntoc pursuant to the provisions of Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. It was alleged therein that said judgment was rendered more than five years ago but that since then less than ten years had elapsed, and that judgment be rendered reviving the one entered on December 29, 1949 sentencing the defendants to pay jointly and severally the outstanding balance of P7,699.49 as of February 9, 1961, with interest thereon of 10% per annum from February 10, 1961, plus 10% of the amount due as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

Defendants Gregorio Pumuntoc and Virginia de Pumuntoc failed to file their answer within the reglementary period for which reason they were declared in default. Defendant Amando M. Perez, who was summoned by publication, also failed to file his answer, whereupon he was also declared in default, and though he later filed an answer the same was stricken out from the record.

Thereupon, plaintiff submitted its evidence, but when the case was submitted for decision, the court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action had already prescribed under Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, since prescription is a defense that can only be set up by defendants, the court could not motu proprio consider it as basis for dismissal, but this motion was denied.

Plaintiff took the present appeal.

It appears that when defendants were declared in default plaintiff was allowed to present its evidence from which it was established that in the previous case between the same parties (Civil Case No. 9048) a decision was rendered on December 29, 1949 ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,783.78, with 8% interest from December 21, 1949 until fully paid, plus the corresponding attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This decision became final on February 2, 1950, or 30 days from the date same was received by the parties. As a matter of fact, the writ issued for its execution bears the date of February 24, 1950. However, the instant case was filed with the court a quo only on March 22, 1961, thereby showing that more than 11 years had already elapsed on the date of the filing of the action.

Since under Section 6, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court a judgment which was rendered more than five years after it had become final can only be revived before it is barred by the statute of limitations, and an action for the enforcement of judgment can only be brought within 10 years from the time the judgment becomes final (Articles 1144 and 1152, Civil Code), it follows that plaintiff’s action has already prescribed as found by the court a quo. In other words, while plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the previous judgment was rendered more than five years but less than ten years since its rendition, the very evidence of the plaintiff, however, shows that the present action was filed after the lapse of more than 10 years.chanrobles.com:cralaw:nad

It is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if the same is invoked as such in the answer of the defendant and that in this particular instance no such defense was invoked because the defendants had been declared in default, but such rule does not obtain when the evidence shows that the cause of action upon which plaintiff’s complaint is based is already barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, the court a quo made on this point the following finding:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Since the defendants did not elect to appeal the decision against them, the same became final on February 2, 1950 or 30 days from receipt by the parties of copies of the decision. Said decision must at the latest have become final on February 24, 1950, the date the writ of execution Exhibit B-1 was signed. However, the instant case was filed with this Court on March 22, 1961, thereby showing that whether from February 2, 1950 or February 24, 1950, more than 11 years have already elapsed."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23876 February 22, 1966 URSULA C. DAJAO v. BENEDICTO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17518-19 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SECAPURI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18295 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIZARDO PASIONA

  • G.R. No. L-17638 February 28, 1966 PRIMO GAFFUD v. MARCIANA CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19371 February 28, 1966 HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. PASAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21079 February 28, 1966 IN RE: KOA HENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21671 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN HUY LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19648 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. L-19579 February 28, 1966 IN RE: CHAN KIAT HUAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19722 February 28, 1966 FLORENCIO L. ALBINO v. TOMAS L. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19751 February 28, 1966 ALFREDO REMITERE, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS MONTINOLA VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19900 February 28, 1966 EXPEDITO REMONTE, ET AL. v. AQUILINO P. BONTO

  • G.R. No. L-19905 February 28, 1966 VIRGILIO BRUA v. ENRIQUE INTING

  • G.R. No. L-20152 February 28, 1966 IN RE: LEONCIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20412 February 28, 1966 PNB v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20505 February 28, 1966 IN RE: ONG KIM KONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20601 February 28, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20712 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN KING BOOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20753 February 28, 1966 BASIC BOOKS (PHIL.), INC. v. EMILIO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20978 February 28, 1966 PHIL- AM GEN. INS. CO., INC. v. EUGENIO B. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21415 February 8, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21435 February 28, 1966 MLA. ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 February 28, 1966 JOSE REYES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21523 February 28, 1966 NGO CHIAO LIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21569 February 28, 1966 BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL. v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN

  • G.R. No. L-21833 February 28, 1966 STATE BONDING & INS. CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21877 February 28, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ENRIQUE TONGOL

  • G.R. No. L-22043 February 28, 1966 AURORA C. MALLARI, ET AL. v. VICTORY LINER, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22609 February 28, 1966 CHIEF OF THE P.C. v. SABUNGAN BAGONG SILANG, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23301 February 28, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23828 February 28, 1966 PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24727 February 28, 1966 PATERNO JAVIER v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25084 and L-25270 February 28, 1966 ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25502 February 28, 1966 LEOPOLDO DIAZ v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25521 February 28, 1966 GREGORIO FERINION v. DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA, ET AL.