Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Vs

    Uploaded by

    eechamp
    This case involved a plaintiff suing a defendant to enforce a contract from August 9, 1903 where the defendant agreed to pay a debt incurred by his deceased mother over 18 years prior. The defendant argued the debt had prescribed. The Supreme Court held that the current action was based on the defendant's 1903 contract to assume the debt, not the original obligation, and a prescribed debt can still be a moral obligation sufficient for consideration to create a new enforceable contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Vs

    Uploaded by

    eechamp
    19 views1 page
    This case involved a plaintiff suing a defendant to enforce a contract from August 9, 1903 where the defendant agreed to pay a debt incurred by his deceased mother over 18 years prior. The defendant argued the debt had prescribed. The Supreme Court held that the current action was based on the defendant's 1903 contract to assume the debt, not the original obligation, and a prescribed debt can still be a moral obligation sufficient for consideration to create a new enforceable contract.

    Original Description:

    personal file

    Original Title

    vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a plaintiff suing a defendant to enforce a contract from August 9, 1903 where the defendant agreed to pay a debt incurred by his deceased mother over 18 years prior. The defendant argued the debt had prescribed. The Supreme Court held that the current action was based on the defendant's 1903 contract to assume the debt, not the original obligation, and a prescribed debt can still be a moral obligation sufficient for consideration to create a new enforceable contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    Vs

    Uploaded by

    eechamp
    This case involved a plaintiff suing a defendant to enforce a contract from August 9, 1903 where the defendant agreed to pay a debt incurred by his deceased mother over 18 years prior. The defendant argued the debt had prescribed. The Supreme Court held that the current action was based on the defendant's 1903 contract to assume the debt, not the original obligation, and a prescribed debt can still be a moral obligation sufficient for consideration to create a new enforceable contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLAROEL VS.

    ESTRADA
    71 Phil. 140 (1940)

    FACTS

    This was originally an action commenced by the plaintiff
    (respondent) against the defendant (petitioner) for the purpose of
    enforcing a contract entered into on August 9, 1903, by virtue of
    which the defendant undertook to pay to the plaintiff a certain debt
    which his deceased mother had incurred from the deceased parents of
    the said plaintiff more than eighteen years ago. It is submitted
    that this debt had already prescribed.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not this action will prosper, considering that
    the debt incurred by the defendant's mother had already prescribed.

    HELD

    The Supreme Court held that the present action is not
    founded on the original obligation contracted by the mother of the
    defendant, which had already prescribed, but on that contracted by
    the defendant on August 9, 1930, in assuming the obligation which
    had already prescribed. The defendant being the only heir of the
    original debtor with the right to succeed in her inheritance, that
    debt lawfully contracted by his mother, although it lost its
    efficacy by prescription, is nevertheless now a moral obligation as
    far as he is concerned, a moral obligation which is a sufficient
    consideration to create and make effective and demandable the
    obligation which he had voluntarily contracted on August 9, 1930.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    You might also like