Philippine National Bank v. Velmonte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 2, 1953, a judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. 24254 sentencing defendants Lina Velmonte, Rodolfo Cornejo, and Felicisimo Y. Guevarra to jointly and severally pay Philippine National Bank (PNB) P1,001.02 with interest and attorney's fees. Procedural History: On January 28, 1964, PNB filed Civil Case No. 117899 to revive the judgment, alleging partial payment of P150 by defendant Cornejo on July 20, 1956, which PNB claimed interrupted prescription. The Municipal Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for PNB. The Court of Appeals reversed this, holding the action had prescribed. The Petition: PNB seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the partial payment by Cornejo tolled the statute of limitations for reviving the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the partial payment of P150 made by defendant Cornejo on July 20, 1956, interrupts the period of prescription for the revival of the judgment in Civil Case No. 24254. Whether Article 1151 of the Civil Code is applicable to the revival of a judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the action for revival of judgment had prescribed. The Court ruled that a partial payment, not being a written acknowledgment of the debt, does not interrupt the period of prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether partial payment interrupts prescription for revival of judgment: The Court held that Article 1155 of the Civil Code explicitly requires a "written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor" to interrupt the period of prescription. While a partial payment may imply an acknowledgment of debt, it is not necessarily a written acknowledgment. The Court distinguished this from the old Civil Code, which did not require a writing. Therefore, the alleged partial payment of P150 by defendant Cornejo, not being in writing, did not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations for the revival of the judgment. The Court noted that the payment was sought to be established by a receipt issued by the creditor, not a written acknowledgment by the debtor. On the applicability of Article 1151 of the Civil Code: The Court found Article 1151 inapplicable to the case at bar. This provision refers to the "enforcement of obligations to pay principal with interest or annuity" where payment is due at stipulated intervals, and the prescriptive period begins from the last payment of the annuity or interest. The P150 payment was not intended as satisfaction for any "annuity or interest." Furthermore, an action to revive a judgment prescribes from the time it becomes final. Applying Article 1151 would also create an inconsistency with Article 1155, which the Court aims to harmonize. The Court emphasized that the interpretation advocated by the plaintiff would render Article 1151 inconsistent with Article 1155 and defeat the purpose of the Civil Code framers in modifying the rule under the Spanish Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
A partial payment of a debt, not being a written acknowledgment thereof, does not interrupt the period of prescription for the revival of a judgment under Article 1155 of the Civil Code.