Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    4 DBP Vs Adil

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    The document discusses a case between DBP and spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte regarding an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. While the original 10-year term of the loan had lapsed, Confesor later signed a second promissory note acknowledging the debt. The Supreme Court ruled that by signing the new note, Confesor waived the right to claim prescription on the original debt. As administrator of the conjugal partnership, Confesor's acknowledgement of the debt also made the partnership liable for paying the obligation. The petition of DBP was granted, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

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

    4 DBP Vs Adil

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    1K views2 pages
    The document discusses a case between DBP and spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte regarding an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. While the original 10-year term of the loan had lapsed, Confesor later signed a second promissory note acknowledging the debt. The Supreme Court ruled that by signing the new note, Confesor waived the right to claim prescription on the original debt. As administrator of the conjugal partnership, Confesor's acknowledgement of the debt also made the partnership liable for paying the obligation. The petition of DBP was granted, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    4 DBP vs Adil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case between DBP and spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte regarding an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. While the original 10-year term of the loan had lapsed, Confesor later signed a second promissory note acknowledging the debt. The Supreme Court ruled that by signing the new note, Confesor waived the right to claim prescription on the original debt. As administrator of the conjugal partnership, Confesor's acknowledgement of the debt also made the partnership liable for paying the obligation. The petition of DBP was granted, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    4 DBP Vs Adil

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    The document discusses a case between DBP and spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte regarding an unpaid agricultural loan from 1940. While the original 10-year term of the loan had lapsed, Confesor later signed a second promissory note acknowledging the debt. The Supreme Court ruled that by signing the new note, Confesor waived the right to claim prescription on the original debt. As administrator of the conjugal partnership, Confesor's acknowledgement of the debt also made the partnership liable for paying the obligation. The petition of DBP was granted, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Effect of recognition of obligation despite prescription.

    DBP vs. Adil


    L-48889
    Facts: In 1940 spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte
    obtained an agricultural loan from DBP the sum of P2,000.00 as
    evidenced by a promissory note of said date whereby they bound
    themselves 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.
    Said spouses not having paid the obligation on the specified date,
    the DBP filed a complaint. The City Court of Ilo-ilo renders judgment,
    ordering the defendants-spouses to pay the plaintiff. Spouses appealed
    in the CFI and the decision was reversed favouring the spouses.
    Hence, DBP filed a petition.

    Issue: Whether or not the right to prescription may be renounced or


    waived

    Ruling: YES. There is no doubt that prescription has set in as to the


    first promissory note of February 10, 1940. However, when respondent
    Confesor executed the second promissory note, he thereby effectively
    and expressly renounced and waived his right to the prescription of the
    action covering the first promissory note.

    A party acknowledges the correctness of a debt and promises to


    pay it after the same has prescribed and with full knowledge of the
    prescription he thereby waives the benefit of prescription. This is not a
    mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new
    promise to pay the debt.

    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. 5 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. Petition is granted reinstating the decision of
    the City Court of Iloilo City.

    You might also like