Pay vs. Vda.

de Palanca
No. L-29900
June 28, 1974
When Payable on Demand

FACTS:
Petitioner George Pay is a creditor of the Late Justo Palanca.
Petitioners claim is based on a promissory note dated January 30, 1952where Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca
promised to pay petitioner the amount go Php 26,900 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum upon receipt by either of the undersigned of
cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand.
The promissory note indicated payment upon demand. Petitioner relied on this to mean that prescription would not lie unless there is
demand from them. The petition was filed fifteen years after its issuance.
Petitioner is now seeking his claim to Segundina Chua de Palancathe surviving spouse of the late Justo Palanca who he appointed as
administratrix of a certain piece of property.
Segundina Chua de Palanca, the surviving spouse, refused to be appointed as the administratrix; that the property sought to be administered no
longer belonged to the debtor and that the right of petitioner has already prescribed.

ISSUE: WON a creditor is barred by prescription to collect on a promissory note executed more than fifteen (15) years earlier this petition.

RULING:
No, he is barred by prescription. Since the note was dated on January 30, 1952 it is clear that more than ten (10) years has already transpired
from that time until this date. Thus, the action of creditor has definitely prescribed. Even if the petitioner is assailing the validity of the refusal
of the surviving spouse, the question of prescription need only to be answered. The obligation being due and demandable, it would appear that
the filing of the suit after fifteen (15) years was much too late considering that under the Civil Code the prescriptive period for a written
contract is that of ten (10) years.

WON a promissory note to be paid upon demand is immediately due and demandable.
YES. Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the parties, is
demandable at once (Art. 1179 of the New Civil Code). The obligation being due and demandable in this case, it would appear that the filing of
the suit after fifteen years was much too late.