BORROMEO v.

CA

47 SCRA 65

Facts: Defendant Jose Villamor borrowed a sum of money to petitioner, Canuto Borromeo. To pay his
debt, Villamor signed a promissory note in favor of Borromeo with interest rate of 12% per annum, the
note stipulates that the defendant waives his rights to the prescription for the collection of the money at
any time, even after the lapse of ten years from the date of the execution of the note.

Issue: Whether or not a stipulation renouncing future prescription is valid.

Ruling: Yes, in interpretation of contracts, while ordinarily, the literal sense of the words employed
should be followed, this is not the case when they appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the
contracting parties. The intention shall prevail; nothing is implausible in the debtor renouncing his rights
to the prescription because in this case the creditor trusted the debtor to pay even after the termination
of the ten-year prescriptive period.