7/29/2019 1. Villaroel vs. Estrada

1/2

Villaroel v. Estrada

[No. 47362. December 19, 1940]

JOHN F. VILLARROEL, appellant vs. BERNARDINO ESTRADA, appealed.

Facts:

1. On May 9, 1912, Alejandra F. Callao, mother of defendant John F. Villarroel, obtained from the spousesMariano Estrada and Severina a loan of P1, 000 payable after seven years.

2. Alejandra died, leaving as sole heir to the defendant. Spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina also died,leaving as sole heir to the plaintiff Bernardino Estrada.

3. On August 9, 1930, the defendant signed a document by which the applicant must declare in the amountof P1, 000, with an interest of 12 percent per year.

4. The Court of First Instance of Laguna, which was filed in this action, condemn the defendant to pay theclaimed amount of P1, 000 with legal interest of 12 percent per year since the August 9, 1930 until full

pay.

5. Villaroel appealed the sentence.Issue: Whether or not the right to prescription may be waived or renounced.

Held: Yes. The right to prescription may be waived or renounced. As a general rule, when a debt is already barred

by prescription, it cannot be enforced by the creditor. But a new contract recognizing and assuming the prescribed

debt would be valid and enforceable. Therefore, where the party acknowledges (1) The correctness of the debt

and; (2) promises to pay it after the same has been prescribed and; (3) and with the full knowledge of the

prescription; he thereby waives the benefit of prescription.

Issue: Whether or not the rule that a new promise to pay a debt required to be made by the same person

obligated or otherwise legally authorized by it is applicable.

Held: No. the present case is not required in compliance with the obligation of the originally required but which

would give it voluntarily assumed this obligation.

Issue: Whether or not the Action of the Court of First Instance of Laguna is Appropriate.

Held: Yes. This action is not based on the original obligation contracted by the mother of the defendant, which has

already prescribed, but in which the defendant contracted the August 9, 1930 by assuming the fulfillment of that

obligation, as prescribed.

Decision: Affirmed

Note:

Art. 1424. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation has lapsed by extinctive prescription, the obligor who

voluntarily performs the contract cannot recover what he has delivered or the value of the service he has

rendered.

Fulfillment of natural obligation: (Any of the following must be done voluntarily)

1. Delivery of the thing2. Performance of an act3. Giving of a security4. Execution of a document5. Abandonment of a right6. Mere promise to perform the obligation

7/29/2019 1. Villaroel vs. Estrada

2/2