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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    (Digest) Benito Gonzales Vs de Jose

    Uploaded by

    Wilfred Martinez
    This case involves a lawsuit brought by Benito Gonzalez to recover amounts owed on two promissory notes from Florentino de Jose totaling P547.95. The court held that the promissory notes were governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code, which allows the court to fix a term for repayment when a term is not specified. However, the court also found that the 10-year period to ask the court to fix a term under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had elapsed, so the plaintiff's action had prescribed and the defendant was absolved of the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    (Digest) Benito Gonzales Vs de Jose

    Uploaded by

    Wilfred Martinez
    128 views2 pages
    This case involves a lawsuit brought by Benito Gonzalez to recover amounts owed on two promissory notes from Florentino de Jose totaling P547.95. The court held that the promissory notes were governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code, which allows the court to fix a term for repayment when a term is not specified. However, the court also found that the 10-year period to ask the court to fix a term under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had elapsed, so the plaintiff's action had prescribed and the defendant was absolved of the complaint.

    Original Title

    [Digest] Benito Gonzales vs De Jose

    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 involves a lawsuit brought by Benito Gonzalez to recover amounts owed on two promissory notes from Florentino de Jose totaling P547.95. The court held that the promissory notes were governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code, which allows the court to fix a term for repayment when a term is not specified. However, the court also found that the 10-year period to ask the court to fix a term under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had elapsed, so the plaintiff's action had prescribed and the defendant was absolved of the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    (Digest) Benito Gonzales Vs de Jose

    Uploaded by

    Wilfred Martinez
    This case involves a lawsuit brought by Benito Gonzalez to recover amounts owed on two promissory notes from Florentino de Jose totaling P547.95. The court held that the promissory notes were governed by Article 1128 of the Civil Code, which allows the court to fix a term for repayment when a term is not specified. However, the court also found that the 10-year period to ask the court to fix a term under Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had elapsed, so the plaintiff's action had prescribed and the defendant was absolved of the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    [ GR No.

    43429, Oct 24, 1938 ]

    BENITO GONZALEZ v. FLORENTINO DE JOSE

    DECISION

    66 Phil. 369

    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.

    Anterior .........................................................................
      P71.10 
    ..
        474.65 
    Sept. 12,
      300.00 
    1922 ..................................................................
        ______ 
    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 said 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 obligation 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."

    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 1128 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. (Eleizegui 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.

    You might also like