Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

DBP v Judge Adil, Sps. Patricio Confessor and Jovita Villafuerte GR No.


*This case arose from the action taken by DBP (wc was Agricultural and industrial Bank before) against the respondent spouses
(Confessor member of Congress, and Villafuerte)for the reason of the latters failure to pay for the 2,000 peso debt they
acquired from the bank. The amount was secured by a promissory note executed jointly and severally by the spouses. In the said
note, the spouses agreed to pay the amount in 10 equal annual amortizations.
*After the lapse of the 10 year period, Patricio Confessor, executed another promissory note stating that he will pay the
outstanding amount of the loan, and in case of failure to pay, he agreed to have his mortgage foreclosed.

The spouses failed to honor their 2nd promissory note.

DBP then filed a complaint against the spouses with City Court of Iloilo City.

Court: ruled in favor of DBP, and ordered the spouses to pay the latter ( Php 5760 + addtl daily interest from date complaint filed
to date paid)
Spouses appealed the decision, and 2 years later, in 1978, the spouses acquired a favorable decision. Judge decided that right to
prescription cannot be renounced or waived; signing of 2nd prom note alone cannot bind wife.
DBP filed a motion for reconsideration now including the judge who rendered the decision, with the grounds that the judge
refused to recognize the law that the right to prescription may be renounced or waived.

1. WON the right to prescription may be renounced or waived.
And so, WON Spouses Confessor and Villafuerte have the obligation to settle their debt, considering that they acknowledged to
pay the outstanding loan despite the fact that it had prescribed.

2. WON by signing the 2nd promissory note alone, R Confessor can bind his wife to settle the obligation.


1. Yes, right to prescription may be renounced or waived.

Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already obtained, but not the right to
prescribe in the future.

Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation results from acts which imply the abandonment
of the right acquired.

There is no doubt that prescription has set in as to the first promissory note of February 10, 1940.
However, when respondent Confesor executed the second promissory note on April 11, 1961 whereby he promised to pay the
amount covered by the previous promissory note on or before June 15, 1961, and upon failure to do so, agreed to the foreclosure
of the mortgage, said respondent thereby effectively and expressly renounced and waived his right to the prescription of the
action covering the first promissory note.

The court cited the case of Villaroel v Estrada stating: ... when a debt is already barred by prescription, it cannot be enforced
by the creditor. But a new contract recognizing and assuming the prescribed debt would be valid and enforceable.

It has also been held that when a party acknowledges the correctness of a debt and promises to pay it after it has prescribed,
and with knowledge of the prescription, he waives the benefit of prescription.

This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to pay the debt. The
consideration of the new promissory note is the pre-existing obligation under the first promissory note. The statutory
limitation bars the remedy but does not discharge the debt.

2. Signing the 2nd promissory note alone, R Confessor can bind his wife to settle the obligation.
Art 166 of NCC. Unless wife had been declared a non compos mentis/spendthrift/under interdiction/leprosarium, husband
cannot alienate or encumber any real property of conjugal partnership wo wifes consent.

Conjugal partnership is liable for the obligation.