Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    191 Borromeo V CA

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals. The case involved a promissory note signed by the defendant Villamor waiving the right to invoke prescription after 10 years for a debt owed to the plaintiff Borromeo. The Court of Appeals had ruled the waiver invalid, but the Supreme Court found that the waiver should be upheld based on the evident intention and friendship between the parties, and that terms contrary to law can be separated from a valid contract when independent. The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court decision ordering Villamor to pay Borromeo the debt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    191 Borromeo V CA

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    78 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals. The case involved a promissory note signed by the defendant Villamor waiving the right to invoke prescription after 10 years for a debt owed to the plaintiff Borromeo. The Court of Appeals had ruled the waiver invalid, but the Supreme Court found that the waiver should be upheld based on the evident intention and friendship between the parties, and that terms contrary to law can be separated from a valid contract when independent. The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court decision ordering Villamor to pay Borromeo the debt.

    Original Description:

    Rymmjdmjgmyirkriykugkudkuyrkuy

    Original Title

    191 Borromeo v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals. The case involved a promissory note signed by the defendant Villamor waiving the right to invoke prescription after 10 years for a debt owed to the plaintiff Borromeo. The Court of Appeals had ruled the waiver invalid, but the Supreme Court found that the waiver should be upheld based on the evident intention and friendship between the parties, and that terms contrary to law can be separated from a valid contract when independent. The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court decision ordering Villamor to pay Borromeo the debt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    191 Borromeo V CA

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals. The case involved a promissory note signed by the defendant Villamor waiving the right to invoke prescription after 10 years for a debt owed to the plaintiff Borromeo. The Court of Appeals had ruled the waiver invalid, but the Supreme Court found that the waiver should be upheld based on the evident intention and friendship between the parties, and that terms contrary to law can be separated from a valid contract when independent. The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court decision ordering Villamor to pay Borromeo the debt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    191

    BORROMEO v COURT OF APPEALS


    47 SCRA 65
    FERNANDO, J

    FACTS
    Before 1933, defendant (Jose A. Villamor) was a distributor of lumber belonging to Mr. Miller who
    was the agent of the Insular Lumber Company in Cebu City. Defendant being a friend and former
    classmate of plaintiff (Canuto O. Borromeo) used to borrow from the latter certain amounts from time
    to time. One time, defendant borrowed a large sum of money for which he mortgaged his land and house
    in Cebu City to pay some pressing obligation with Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller filed a civil action against
    the defendant and attached his properties including those mortgaged to plaintiff, inasmuch as the deed
    of mortgage in favor of plaintiff could not be registered because not properly drawn up. Plaintiff then
    pressed the defendant for settlement of his obligation, but defendant instead offered to execute a
    document promising to pay his indebtedness even after the lapse of ten years. Liquidation was made and
    defendant was found to be indebted to plaintiff in the sum of P7,220.00, for which defendant signed a
    promissory note therefor on November 29, 1933 with interest at 12% per annum, agreeing to pay when
    he has the money. The note further stipulates that defendant 'hereby relinquish, renounce, or otherwise
    waive my rights to the prescriptions established by our Code of Civil Procedure for the collection or
    recovery of the above sum of P7,220.00 … at any time even after the lapse of ten years from the date of
    this instrument'.
    After the execution of the document, plaintiff limited himself to verbally requesting defendant to
    settle his indebtedness from time to time. Plaintiff did not file any complaint against the defendant within
    ten years from the execution of the document as there was no property registered in defendant's name,
    who furthermore assured him that he could collect even after the lapse of ten years. After the last war,
    plaintiff made various oral demands, but defendants failed to settle his account. The Court of First
    Instance ordered Villamor to pay Borromeo (represented by his heirs) the sum of P7,220.00 within ninety
    days from the date of the receipt of such decision with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the
    expiration of such ninety-day period. The judgement was then reversed by the Court of Appeals in its
    March 7, 1964 Decision citing the lack of validity of the stipulation amounting to a waiver in line with the
    principle "that a person cannot renounce future prescription.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the ruling of the CFI in finding the lack of validity of the
    stipulation amounting to a waiver in line with the principle "that a person cannot renounce future
    prescription"

    HELD

    YES. The Court found that the creditor, moved by ties of friendship was more than willing to give
    the debtor the utmost latitude as to when his admittedly scanty resources will allow him to pay. He was
    not renouncing any right; he was just being considerate, perhaps excessively so. Between two possible
    interpretations, that which saves rather than destroys is to be preferred.

    It is a fundamental principle in the interpretation of contracts that while ordinarily the literal
    sense of the words employed is to be followed, such is not the case where they "appear to be contrary
    to the evident intention of the contracting parties," which “intention shall prevail” (Art. 1370). The terms,
    clauses and conditions contrary to law, morals and public order (in this case the contested stipulation)
    should be separated from the valid and legal contract when such separation can be made because they
    are independent of the valid contract which expresses the will of the contracting parties.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals of March 7, 1964 is REVERSED, thus
    giving full force and effect to the decision of the lower court of November 15, 1956.

    You might also like