14.

ESPAÑOL v BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS (1) WON the action of Español already prescribed
GR NO. L-44616
JUNE 29, 1985 HELD/RATIO:
By: CHESKA DOMINGUEZ (1) NO.
Topic: ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; TACKING; EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION ● The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action, which
Petitioners: MARIA U. ESPAÑOL consists of 3 elements, namely:
Respondents: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever
ADMINISTRATORS, PHILIPPINE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION law it arises or is created;
Ponente: MAKASIAR, J. b) an obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right; and
c) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of
the plaintiff.
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Petitioner Español, widow of the late veteran
● Español cannot be said to have a cause of action, in compelling PVA to
German Español, applied for monthly pension with the PVA. Her application was
continue paying her monthly pension on November 1, 1951, because
approved. On Nov. 1, 1951, PVA cancelled the pensions in pursuance of its
PVA's act of cancellation, being pursuant to an administrative policy,
administrative policy. On June 27, 1973, SC declared the said policy as invalid.
cannot be considered a violation of Español's right to receive her monthly
On Feb. 25, 1974, Español filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel PVA to
pension.
restore the payment of her monthly pension before the CFI. CFI granted said
● It is only when SC declared invalid the questioned administrative policy in
petition. PVA then appealed to the SC arguing that Español's action already
the case of Del Mar vs. PVA, promulgated on June 27, 1973, can Español
prescribed. The SC held in the negative. The 10-year prescriptive should be
be said to have a cause of action to compel PVA to resume her monthly
counted from 1973 when the policy was declared invalid.
pension; because it is at that point in time, when the presumption of
legality of the questioned administrative policy had been rebutted and
DOCTRINE: The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action, which
thus it can be said with certainty that PVA's act was in violation of
consists of 3 elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
Español's right to receive her monthly pension. The 10-year prescriptive
means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part
period should be counted from June 27, 1973 and not from Nov. 1, 1951.
of defendant to respect such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such
● SC ordered respondents to pay petitioner her monthly pension.
defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff.

FACTS:
● Petitioner Maria U. Español was the widow of the deceased veteran
German Español, who died in the service during World War II. She applied
for monthly pension under R.A. No. 65 with the Philippine Veterans
Administration (PVA). Her application was approved and she and her
children received their monthly pension.
● On Nov. 1, 1951, PVA, in pursuance of its administrative policy, cancelled
their monthly pensions.
● On Feb. 25, 1974, or 22 years after the cancellation, Español filed with
the CFI a Petition for Mandamus against PVA for the restoration and
continued payment of their monthly pension. CFI ruled in her favor.
● PVA appealed to the CA, which elevated the appeal to the SC due to
question of law. PVA contented that the action of Español already
prescribed.

ISSUE: