Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Gonzales V Jose

    Uploaded by

    MADEE VILLANUEVA
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding two promissory notes. The defendant appealed a lower court decision ordering him to pay the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the action to recover payment had prescribed according to the Civil Code, and reversed the lower court decision absolving the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    Gonzales V Jose

    Uploaded by

    MADEE VILLANUEVA
    5 views2 pages
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding two promissory notes. The defendant appealed a lower court decision ordering him to pay the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the action to recover payment had prescribed according to the Civil Code, and reversed the lower court decision absolving the defendant.

    Original Description:

    CIVIL LAW - Obligations and Contracts

    Original Title

    29. Gonzales v Jose

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding two promissory notes. The defendant appealed a lower court decision ordering him to pay the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the action to recover payment had prescribed according to the Civil Code, and reversed the lower court decision absolving the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    Gonzales V Jose

    Uploaded by

    MADEE VILLANUEVA
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding two promissory notes. The defendant appealed a lower court decision ordering him to pay the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the action to recover payment had prescribed according to the Civil Code, and reversed the lower court decision absolving the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    1/26/24, 4:10 PM G.R. No.

    L-43429

    Today is Friday, January 26, 2024

    Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-43429 October 24, 1938

    BENITO GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    FLORENTINO DE JOSE, defendant-appellant.

    Felino Villasin for appellant.


    Eusebio Orense for appellee.

    IMPERIAL, J.:

    This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the amount of two promissory notes worded
    as follows:

    I promise to pay Mr. Benito Gonzalez the sum of four hundred three pesos and fifty-five centavos
    (P403.55) as soon as possible. lâwphi1.nêt

    Anterior P71.10
    474.65
    Sept. 12, 1922 300.00

    Balance 174.65

    Manila, June 22, 1922.


    (Sgd.) FLORENTINO DE JOSE
    Quezon, Nueva Ecija

    I promise to pay Mr. Benito Gonzalez the sum of three hundred and seventy-three pesos and
    thirty centavos (P373.30) as soon as possible.

    In Manila, this 13th day of September, 1922.

    (Sgd.) FLORENTINO DE JOSE

    Defendant appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering him to pay the plaintiff the
    sum of P547.95 within thirty days from the date of notification of sad decision, plus the costs.

    In his answer the defendant interposed the special defenses that the complaint is uncertain inasmuch as it does not
    specify when the indebtedness was incurred or when it was demandable, and that, granting that the plaintiff has any
    cause of action, the same has prescribed in accordance with law. Resolving the defense of prescription, the trial
    court held that the action for the recovery of the amount of the two promissory notes has not prescribed in
    accordance with article 1128 of the Civil Code which provides:

    ART. 1128. If the obligations does not specify a term, but it is to be inferred from its nature and circumstances
    that it was intended to grant the debtor time for its performance, the period of the term shall be fixed by the
    court.

    The court shall also fix the duration of the term when it has been left to the will of the debtor.

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/oct1938/gr_l-43429_1938.html 1/2
    1/26/24, 4:10 PM G.R. No. L-43429
    It is practically admitted by the parties that the obligations arising from the two promissory notes should be governed
    by said article, inasmuch as it was the intention of the plaintiff, evidenced by the terms of the said notes, to grant the
    debtor a period within which to pay the debts. The four errors assigned by the defendant turn on the applicability of
    article 1128 and on the prescription of the action brought by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that article 1113 of
    the Civil Code should be applied inasmuch as the obligations derived from the promissory notes were demandable
    from the time of their execution, and adds that even supposing that article 1128 is applicable, the action to ask the
    court to fix the period had already prescribed in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    We hold that the two promissory notes are governed by article 1123 because under the terms thereof the plaintiff
    intended to grant the defendant a period within which to pay his debts. as the promissory notes do not fix this period,
    it is for the court to fix the same. (Eleizagui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis club, 2 Phil., 309; Barretto vs. City of Manila, 7
    Phil., 416 Floriano vs. Delgado, 11 Phil., 154; Levy Hermanos vs. Paterno, 18 Phil, 353.) The action to ask the court
    to fix the period has already prescribed in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This period
    of prescription is ten years, which has already elapsed from the execution of the promissory notes until the filing of
    the action on June 1, 1934. The action which should be brought in accordance with article 1128 is different from the
    action for the recovery of the amount of the notes, although the effects of both are the same, being, like other civil
    actions, subject to the rules of prescription.

    The action brought by the plaintiff having already prescribed, the appealed decision should be reversed and the
    defendant absolved from the complaint, without special pronouncement as to the costs in both instances. So
    ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/oct1938/gr_l-43429_1938.html 2/2

    You might also like