Gonzalez v. De Jose
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns an action instituted by Benito Gonzalez to recover the sum of P547.95 from Florentino de Jose, based on two promissory notes executed by the defendant. The notes, dated June 22, 1922, and September 13, 1922, both stated that payment was to be made "as soon as possible." 2. Procedural History: The plaintiff, Benito Gonzalez, filed suit to recover the amount due on the promissory notes. The defendant, Florentino de Jose, appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which ordered him to pay the plaintiff P547.95 plus costs. The defendant raised defenses of uncertainty in the complaint and prescription of the action. 3. The Petition: The defendant-appellant argued that the complaint was uncertain and that the action had prescribed. He contended that Article 1113 of the Civil Code should apply, making the obligations demandable upon execution, or alternatively, that even under Article 1128, the action to fix a term had prescribed under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court, however, found that the action to fix the period had prescribed under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as ten years had elapsed from the execution of the notes until the filing of the action.
Issue(s)
Whether the action to recover the amount of the two promissory notes has prescribed. Whether Article 1128 or Article 1113 of the Civil Code governs the promissory notes. Whether the action to ask the court to fix the period for payment had prescribed.
Ruling
The appealed decision was reversed, and the defendant was absolved from the complaint. The action brought by the plaintiff had already prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the action to recover the amount of the two promissory notes has prescribed: The Court held that the action had prescribed. The promissory notes were executed in 1922, and the action was filed on June 1, 1934. The Court found that the period of prescription had elapsed. On whether Article 1128 or Article 1113 of the Civil Code governs the promissory notes: The Court ruled that the promissory notes are governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code. This article applies when an obligation does not specify a term but it can be inferred from its nature and circumstances that the debtor was intended to be granted time for performance. The phrase 'as soon as possible' in the notes indicated the intention to grant the debtor a period within which to pay. Consequently, the period for performance should be fixed by the court. On whether the action to ask the court to fix the period for payment had prescribed: The Court held that the action to ask the court to fix the period, as provided for in Article 1128 of the Civil Code, had already prescribed. According to Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prescriptive period for such an action is ten years. This period had elapsed from the execution of the promissory notes until the filing of the action. The Court clarified that while the action to fix the period is distinct from the action for recovery, both are civil actions subject to the rules of prescription.
Main Doctrine
The action to ask the court to fix the period for payment of an obligation payable 'as soon as possible' prescribes after ten years from the execution of the promissory notes, pursuant to Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, rendering the subsequent action for recovery of the amount barred.