Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYLLABUS
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 person legally authorized by him, is not applicable to the present case in
which the fulfillment of the obligation of the original obligor is not required, but of the one who later
voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation.
DECISION
AVANCEÑA,Pres
On May 9, 1912, Alejandra F. Callao, mother of the defendant Juan F. Villarroel, obtained from the
spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina a loan of P1,000 payable after seven years (Exhibito A). Alejandra
died, leaving the defendant as the only heir. The spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina also died,
leaving as sole heir the plaintiff Bernardino Estrada. On August 9, 1930, the defendant signed a
document (Exhibit B) by which he declares the plaintiff owed the amount of P1,000, with an interest of
12 percent per year. This action deals with 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 claimed amount of P1,000 with his legal interests of 12 percent to the aiio from August 9,
until its full payment. I appeal to this judgment.
It should be noted that the parties to the present case are, respectively, the sole heirs of the original
creditors and debtor. This action is exercised by virtue of the obligation that the defendant, as the only
son of the primitive debtor, contracted in favor of the plaintiff, the only heir of the original creditors. It is
admitted that the amount of P1,000 at which this obligation is contracted is the same debt from the
defendant's mother to the plaintiff's parents.
Although the action to recover the original debt has already expired when the lawsuit was filed in this
case, the question raised in this appeal is mainly that of whether, notwithstanding such a prescription,
the action brought is appropriate. However, the present action is not based on the original obligation
contracted by the defendant's madl e, which has already expired, but on the one contracted by the
defendant on August 9, 1930 (Exhibito B) when assuming the fulfillment of that obligation, already
prescribed. Being the defendant the only heir of the primitive debtor, with the right to succeed her in
her inheritance, that debt contracted by his mother legally, although he lost its effectiveness by
prescription, is now, however, for him a moral obligation, which is sufficient consideration to create and
make effective and enforceable his obligation voluntarily contracted on August 9, 1930 in Exhibit B. 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 him, is not applicable to the present case in which the fulfillment of the
obligation of the obligor is not required originally, but the one who later voluntarily wanted to assume
this obligation.
The judgment appealed is upheld, with the costs to the appellant. That's how it's ordered. Imperial, Diaz,
Laurel and Horrilleno, MM., are satisfied.