Villaroel v. Estrada, 71 Phil 140 (1940)

Villaroel v. Estrada, 71 Phil 140 (1940) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

GR No. L-47362

December 19, 1940

JOHN F. VILLARROEL, appellant-appellant, vs. BERNARDINO ESTRADA, turned-appellee. D. Felipe Agoncillo in representation of the appellant-appelante. D. Crispin Oben in representation of the defendant-appellee.

DECISION

Avanceña,J.: On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, mother of defendant John F. Villarroel, obtained from thespouses Mariano Estrada and Severina a loan of P1, 000 payable after seven years (ExhibitoA). Alejandra died, leaving as sole heir to the defendant.Spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina alsodied, leaving as sole heir to the plaintiff Bernardino Estrada. On August 9, 1930, the defendant signeda document (Exhibito B) by which the applicant must declare in the amount of P1, 000, with aninterest of 12 percent per year. This action relates to the recovery of this amount. The Court of First Instance of Laguna, which was filed in this action, condemn the defendant to paythe claimed amount of P1, 000 with legal interest of 12 percent per year since the August 9, 1930until full pay. He appealed the sentence. It will be noted that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the only heirs and creditors of the original debtor. This action is brought under the defendant's liability as the only son of the originaldebtor in favor of the plaintiff contracted, sole heir of primitive loa creditors. It is recognized that theamount of P1, 000 to which contracts this obligation is the same debt of the mother's parents sued theplaintiff. Although the action to recover the original debt has prescribed and when the lawsuit was filed in thiscase, the question raised in this appeal is primarily whether, notwithstanding such requirement, theaction taken is appropriate. However, this action is based on the original obligation contracted by themother of the defendant, who has already prescribed, but in which the defendant contracted theAugust 9, 1930 (Exhibito B) by assuming the fulfillment of that obligation, as prescribed. Being theonly defendant in the original herdero debtor eligible successor into his inheritance, that debt broughtby his mother in law, although it lost its effectiveness by prescription, is now, however, for a moralobligation, that is consideration enough to create and make effective and enforceable obligationvoluntarily contracted its August 9, 1930 in Exhibito B. The rule that a new promise to pay a debt prrescrita must be made by the same person obligated orotherwise legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case is not required in compliancewith the mandatory obligation orignalmente but which would give it voluntarily assumed thisobligation.It confirms the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant. IT IS SO ORDERED. Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, MM., Concur.