JUAN F. VILLARROEL, defendant, vs. BERNARDINO ESTRADA, plaintiff.

TOPIC: Article 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.

Doctrine:
Natural Obligation - cannot be enforced by action, but which is binding on the
party who makes it in conscience and according to the natural law.

FACTS:
On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, the mother of the defendant Juan F. Villarroel,
obtained from the Mariano Estrada and Severina spouses a loan of P1,000 payable after seven
years. Alejandra, passed away, leaving Villaroel (defendant) as sole heir. The spouses Mariano
Estrada and Severina also passed away, leaving Bernardino Estrada (plaintiff) as sole heir. On
August 9, 1930, the defendant signed a document in which he declared in owing the amount of
P1,000, with an interest of 12 percent per year. This action is about the collection of this
amount.

A. Defendant Arguments – the action to recover the original debt has already prescribed
when the claim was filed in this case
B. Plaintiff Arguments – action is not based on the original obligation contracted by the
defendant's mother, which has already been prescribed, but on the one contracted by
the defendant on August 9, 1930 upon assuming compliance with that obligation,
already prescribed

ISSUE: WON Villaroel should pay the amount despite the prescription of the original debt

RULING:
Findings of the lower Court:
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 his legal interests of
12 percent a year from August 9, 1930 to its full payment. Appeal of this sentence.
Villaroel (defendant) appealed.
 Findings of the Court of Appeals: not stated in the full case

Rule: Yes. On August 9, 1930. He assumed the fulfillment of the obligation. Villaroel
voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation. The appealed sentence is confirmed, with costs to
the defendant.

APPLICATION:
The present action is not based on the original obligation contracted by the defendant's
mother, which has already been prescribed, but on the one contracted by the defendant on
August 9, 1930 upon assuming compliance with that obligation, already prescribed. The
defendant being the sole heir of the original debtor, with the right to succeed him in his
inheritance, that debt legally brought by his mother, although it lost its effectiveness by
prescription, is now, however, for him a moral obligation.
The rule that a new promise to pay a prescreened 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 it is not required compliance with the obligation of the obligor originally, but which you
voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation.

CONCLUSION:
The case was not being based on the positive law but on equity and natural law that do
not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but only after voluntary fulfillment by
the obligor, they authorize what has been delivered or rendered by reason thereof.