China Bank V CA

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and ARMED FORCES AND POLICE SAVINGS &

LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. (AFPSLAI), respondents.
23 June 2005 | Quisumbing, J.
FACTS: R AFPSLAI filed a complaint for sum of money against P China Banking Corporation with RTC QC Br 216.
P admitted being the registered owner of the Home Notes, which are instruments of indebtedness issued in favor of Fund Centrum
Finance, Inc. and were sold, transferred and assigned to R. P filed MtD alleging that the real party in interest was FCFI (not joined in
the complaint) and P was mere trustee of FCFI.
RTC: denied MtD and denied MR.
CA: denied Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
SC: dismissed Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 for being an improper remedy
P filed another MtD, invoking prescription.
RTC: denied for lack of merit not apparent in the complaint W/N prescription had set in; directed P to present its evidence; denied MR
there are conflicting claims on the issue of W/N issue has prescribed, full-blown trial in order
CA: dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
ISSUE: W/N the date of maturity of the instruments is the date of accrual of cause of action
P: Upon the face of the complaint, prescription has set in. The Home Notes annexed to the pleading bearing a uniform maturity date of
2 Dec 1983 indicate the date of accrual of the cause of aciton. Hence, Rs filing of the complain on 24 Sept 1996 is way beyond the
prescriptive period of 10 years under NCC 1144. Soriano v. Ubat: Prescriptive period starts from the time when the creditor may file an
action, not from the time he wishes to do so.
R: Prescription is not apparent in the complaint because the maturity date of the Home Notes attached thereto is not the time of accrual
of Ps action. Accrued only on 20 July 1995 when demand to pay was made on P. Since both RTC and CA found that prescription is not
apparent on the face of the complaint, such factual finding should be binding on SC.
SC: CA validly dismissed the petition, there being no GAD committed by RTC in denying Ps MtD on ground of prescription.
Since a cause of action requires, as essential elements, not only a legal right of the plaintiff and a correlative duty of the defendant but
also an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right, the cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated
refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with its duty.
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.
It is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. Accordingly, a cause of action on a written contract accrues only
when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs.
Rs cause of action accrued only on 20 July 1995 when its demand for payment of the Home Notes was refused by P. It was only at that
time, and not before that, when the written contract was breached and private respondent could properly file an action in court.
The cause of action cannot be said to accrue on the uniform maturity date of the Home Notes as petitioner posits because at that point,
the third essential element of a cause of action, namely, an act or omission on the part of petitioner violative of the right of private
respondent or constituting a breach of the obligation of petitioner to private respondent, had not yet occurred.
The subject Home Notes, in fact, specifically states that payment of the principal and interest due on the notes shall be made only upon
presentation for notation and/or surrender for cancellation of the notes.1
Thus, the maturity date of the Home Notes is not controlling as far as accrual of cause of action is concerned. What said date indicates
is the time when the obligation matures, when payment on the Notes would commence, subject to presentation, notation and/or
cancellation of those Notes. The date for computing when prescription of the action for collection begins to set in is properly a function
related to the date of actual demand by the holder of the Notes for payment by the obligor, herein petitioner bank.
Since the demand was made only on July 20, 1995, while the civil action for collection of a sum of money was filed on September 24,
1996, within a period of not more than ten years, such action was not yet barred by prescription.
1 Payment of the principal amount and interest due on this Note shall be made by the Company at the principal office of the Trustee
herein referred to or at such other office or agency that the Company may designate for the purpose, in such coin or currency of the
Republic of the Philippines as at the time of payment shall be legal tender for payment of public and private debts, upon presentation
for notation and/or surrender for cancellation of this Note

China Bank V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Bank V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Bank V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and ARMED FORCES AND POLICE SAVINGS &

You might also like