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.

Avancea, Pres. :
On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, mother of defendant John F. Villarroel, obtained from the
spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina a loan of P1,000 payable after seven years (Exhibito
A). Alexandra died, leaving as sole heir to the defendant. Spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina
died too, leaving as sole heir to the applicant Bernardino Estrada. On August 9, 1930, the defendant
signed a document (Exhibito B) which states in duty to the plaintiff the amount of P1,000, with an
interest of 12 percent per year. This action concerns the recovery of this amount.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, in which this action was filed, condemn the defendant to pay
the claimed amount of P1,000 with legal interest from 12 percent a year from August 9, 1930 until full
payment. I will appeal this ruling.
It will be noted that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the only heirs of the original
creditor and the debtor. This action is exercised under the obligation that the defendant as the only
son of the original debtor contracted in favor of the plaintiff, sole heir loa primitive creditors. It is
recognized that the amount of P1,000 to this obligation is the same debt contract is the mother of the
defendant to the plaintiff parents.
lawphil.net

Although the action to recover the original debt had already prescribed when the complaint was filed
in this case, the question that arises in this appeal is primarily whether, notwithstanding such
prescription is brought from the action. However, this action is not based on the original obligation
contracted by the mother of the defendant, who has already prescribed, but which contracted the
defendant's August 9, 1930 (Exhibito B) to assume the fulfillment of that obligation, already
prescribed. As the defendant the only herdero primitive debtor, with the right to succeed her in his
inheritance, that debt brought by his mother legally, but lost its effectiveness by prescription, is now,
however, for a moral obligation, which is consideration enough to create and effective and
enforceable his obligation voluntarily contracted the 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 or
otherwise legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case in that the fulfillment of the
obligation of the obligated orignalmente is not required, but of that because I wanted to give
voluntarily assume this obligation.
The judgment appealed from, with costs to the appellant is confirmed. So it is ordered.

Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, JJ., Concur.