Philippine National Bank v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint on March 22, 1961, before the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to revive a judgment rendered on December 29, 1949. The original judgment ordered defendants Amando M. Perez, Gregorio Pumuntoc, and Virginia de Pumuntoc to pay PNB jointly and severally the outstanding balance of P7,699.49 as of February 9, 1961, with interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Procedural History: Defendants Gregorio Pumuntoc and Virginia de Pumuntoc failed to file an answer and were declared in default. Defendant Amando M. Perez, after being summoned by publication, also failed to file an answer and was declared in default; his subsequent answer was stricken from the record. PNB presented its evidence. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint motu proprio on the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action had already prescribed under Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code. PNB's motion for reconsideration, arguing that prescription is a defense that must be invoked by the defendants, was denied. PNB appealed the dismissal. The Appeal: PNB appealed the dismissal of its complaint for revival of judgment. PNB contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription when such defense was not raised by the defendants, who were declared in default. PNB argued that prescription is a defense that can only be set up by the defendants.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance could dismiss the complaint for revival of judgment motu proprio on the ground of prescription, despite the defendants being declared in default and not having raised such defense. Whether the plaintiff's action for revival of judgment had prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the plaintiff's action for revival of judgment had prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while it is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if invoked by the defendant, this rule does not apply when the evidence presented by the plaintiff clearly shows that the cause of action is already barred by the statute of limitations. In such instances, the court may dismiss the case motu proprio. The Court noted that the defendants had been declared in default, thus they did not invoke the defense of prescription. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff itself established that the action was filed beyond the prescriptive period. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's action had prescribed. The Court reiterated that under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment may only be revived before it is barred by the statute of limitations. An action for the enforcement of a judgment can only be brought within ten (10) years from the time the judgment becomes final, as provided by Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code. The evidence showed that the original judgment became final on February 2, 1950, or at the latest, on February 24, 1950 (date of writ of execution). The instant case was filed on March 22, 1961, which is more than eleven (11) years after the judgment became final. Therefore, the action had clearly prescribed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Philippine National Bank's complaint for revival of judgment, holding that the action had prescribed. The Court reiterated that under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment may only be revived within ten (10) years from the time it becomes final, as provided by Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code. Despite the defendants being declared in default and not raising the defense of prescription, the Court found that the plaintiff's own evidence demonstrated that the action was filed more than eleven (11) years after the judgment became final, thus warranting dismissal.