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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    DBP vs. Adil

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sued spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte over an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. Confesor later signed a second promissory note in 1961 acknowledging the debt. The court held that (1) the debt was not discharged by prescription due to the new promise to pay, and (2) the conjugal partnership was liable for the obligation since Confesor signed as administrator for the benefit of the partnership.

    Copyright:

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

    DBP vs. Adil

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    35 views1 page
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sued spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte over an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. Confesor later signed a second promissory note in 1961 acknowledging the debt. The court held that (1) the debt was not discharged by prescription due to the new promise to pay, and (2) the conjugal partnership was liable for the obligation since Confesor signed as administrator for the benefit of the partnership.

    Original Title

    dbp vs. adil

    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 Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sued spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte over an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. Confesor later signed a second promissory note in 1961 acknowledging the debt. The court held that (1) the debt was not discharged by prescription due to the new promise to pay, and (2) the conjugal partnership was liable for the obligation since Confesor signed as administrator for the benefit of the partnership.

    Copyright:

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

    DBP vs. Adil

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sued spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte over an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. Confesor later signed a second promissory note in 1961 acknowledging the debt. The court held that (1) the debt was not discharged by prescription due to the new promise to pay, and (2) the conjugal partnership was liable for the obligation since Confesor signed as administrator for the benefit of the partnership.

    Copyright:

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

    Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. Adil, Confesor and Villafuerte, et al., G.R. No.

    L-48889, 11 May 1989.

    19MAR

    [GANCAYCO,  J.]

    FACTS: On February 10, 1940 spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan from the
    Agricultural and Industrial Bank (AIB), now the Development of the Philippines (DBP), in the sum of P2,000.00, Philippine
    Currency, as evidenced by a promissory note of said date whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally to pay
    the account in ten (10) equal yearly amortizations. As the obligation remained outstanding and unpaid even after the
    lapse of the aforesaid ten-year period, Confesor, who was by then a member of the Congress of the Philippines,
    executed a second promissory note on April 11, 1961 expressly acknowledging said loan and promising to pay the same
    on or before June 15, 1961. The trial court ordered the spouses to pay the loan but this was reversed on appeal.

    ISSUE#1: Does prescription operate to discharge a debt even if it there was acknowledgment of the debtor?

    ISSUE#2: Is the conjugal partnership of Confesor and Villafuerte bound by the execution of the second promissory note?

    HELD#1: NO.

    This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to pay the debt. The
    consideration of the new promissory note is the pre-existing obligation under the first promissory note. The statutory
    limitation bars the remedy but does not discharge the debt. A new express promise to pay a debt barred … will take the
    case from the operation of the statute of limitations as this proceeds upon the ground that as a statutory limitation
    merely bars the remedy and does not discharge the debt, there is something more than a mere moral obligation to
    support a promise, to wit a – pre-existing debt which is a sufficient consideration for the new the new promise; upon
    this sufficient consideration constitutes, in fact, a new cause of action.

    HELD#2: YES.

    Under Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. As such administrator,
    all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, are chargeable to the
    conjugal partnership. No doubt, in this case, respondent Confesor signed the second promissory note for the benefit of
    the conjugal partnership. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation.

    You might also like