JUAN F. VILLAROEL, appellant-appellant, against BERNARDINO ESTRADA, appealed-appealed.

D. Felipe Agoncillo in representation of the appellant-appellant.

D. Crispin Oben in representation of the appealed-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CONTRACTS; NEW PROMISE TO PAY A PRESCRIBED DEBT; MORAL OBLIGATION AS CONSIDERATION OF

A CONTRACT. - The present action is not based on the original obligation entered into by the defendant's
mother, who has already preserved, but on the one contracted by the defendant on August 9, 1930 (Exhibit
B) upon assuming the fulfillment of that obligation, already prescribed . Being the defendant the only
inheritance of the original debtor, with the right to succeed in his inheritance, that debt contracted by his
mother legally, although lost its effectiveness by prescription, is now, however, a moral obligation, which is
sufficient consideration to create and make efieaz and exigible their obligation voluntarily contracted on
August 9, 1930 in Exhibit B.

2. ID .; ID; ID. - The rule that a new promise to pay a prescribed debt must be made by the same obligated
person or by another legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case in which compliance with
the obligation of the originally obligated is not required, but of the one that later voluntarily wanted to
assume this obligation.

DECISION
AVANCEÑA, Pres p: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On May 9, 1912, Alejandra F. Callao, mother of the defendant Juan F. Villarroel, obtained a
P1,000 loan from Mariano Estrada and Severina, which was payable after seven years ( Exhibit
A). Alejandra passed away, leaving the defendant as the sole heir. The spouses Mariano Estrada
and Severina also died, leaving the plaintiff Bernardino Estrada as the sole heir. On August 9,
1930, the defendant subscribed a document (Exhibit B) by which he declares in duty to the
plaintiff the amount of P1,000, with an interest of 12 percent per year. This action is about the
collection of this amount.

The Court of First Instance of Laguna, in which this action was filed, ordered the defendant to
pay the plaintiff the amount claimed of P1,000 with its legal interests of 12 percent a year from
August 9, 1930 to its full payment. Appeal of this sentence.

It will be noted that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the sole heirs of the original
creditors and the debtor. This action is exercised by virtue of the obligation that the defendant,
as the only son of the original debtor, contracted in favor of the claimant, sole heir of the original
creditors. It is admitted that the amount of P1,000 to which this obligation is contracted is the
same debt of the defendant's mother to the parents of the plaintiff.

Although the action to recover the original debt has already prescribed when the claim was filed
in this case, the question that arises in this appeal is mainly the question of whether,
notwithstanding such a prescription, the action filed is proceeding. However, the present action
is not based on the original obligation contracted by the defendant's estate, which has already
been prescribed, but on the one contracted by the defendant on August 9, 1930 (Exhibit B) upon
assuming compliance with that obligation. already prescribed. Being the defendant the only heir
of the original debtor, with the right to succeed her in her inheritance, that debt contracted by
her mother legally, although she lost her effectiveness by prescription, is now, however, for him
a moral obligation,

The rule that a new promise to pay a prescribed debt must be made by the same obligated
person or by another legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case in which
compliance with the obligation of the originally obligated is not required, but who later
voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation.

The sentence appealed is confirmed, with the costs to the appellant. This is how it is ordered.

Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, MM., Are satisfied.