Patente vs Omega

Patente vs. Omega - “Promissory note did not expressly provide for a period of when payment shall be made” (Application of Art. 1180 / Courts may fix a period of payment if the obligation, though period is not expressly stipulated, is deemed to be one with a period)

Ramon Omega owes Salud Patente PHP 1,600 as shown in a promissory note which reads as follows: “Villalba, Leyte, August 24, 1949. This is to acknowledge receipt of the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1, 600) from Health Patent, Filipino citizen, of age, single, Also a resident of Villalba, Leyte, like myself, as my indebtedness to her. I am going to pay debt to her, her heirs, Assigns and successors, in the said sum of P1, 600 in Philippine currency, as soon as possible or as soon as I have money. This debt is not covered by any security Because of the intimate relations of my family to her. This sum covers my previous indebtedness to her which i received from her on May 4, 1947 and previous thereto. I hereby certify That I have to pay This whole indebtedness to her, before I exercise my right of repurchase of an agricultural land, situated in Tag-alang, Villalba, Leyte, bearing Tax No. 2662, que I sold to her under a covenant retro sale.” The Judge issued a ruling ordering the payment of the debt within the period of four months from the date of its enactment, with costs.  At the hearing hearing of the the case in the Court Court of First Instance Instance of of Leyte, to which this this case was was taken on appeal, both parties had made an agreement to read as follows: “That, upon the face of the promissory note in question, it is apparent That term is not fixed therein definite and that its performance is left to the will of the debtor-defendant.” debtor- defendant.” ISSUES:

Whether or not the Judge of Villalba, Leyte had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present case and to fix a definite term for the payment of the indebtedness in question by the defendant? HELD: Yes.

DOCTRINE: Art. 1180. When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to the provisions of article 1197.  According to the agreement agreement of of facts submitted submitted by the parties, parties, the question question to be solved solved is the following: If the term of payment has been left to the will of the debtor, does the condition of payment "as soon as possible or as soon as I have money" nullify the condition? Court held that when the deadline for payment of an obligation is left to the sole will of the debtor resulting in the annullment of the condition does not make it into a pure obligation. The obligation is deemed with a period or term . The two promissory notes show that the plaintiff intended to grant the defendant a period within which to pay his debts under the condition that the debtor will pay “as soon as possible or as soon as I have money“. Since there is an implied intention for the plaintiff to give the defendant a period for payment, though it wasn’t expressly stipulated in the promissory note, it does not make the obligation pure wherein the obligation to pay is immediately demandable. Remedy for creditor when no definite period is fixed  As the promissory promissory notes notes do not fix this period, period, it is for the court to fix the same. same. The creditor cannot immediately demand for payment. Creditor's recourse in such a case is to go to court to demand the fixing of the term of payment.