Scribd
Upload
87 views1 page

Development Bank of The Philippines (DBP) v. Adil, Confesor and Villafuerte, Et Al., G.R. No. L-48889, 11 May 1989.

1) Spouses Confesor and Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan in 1940 and executed a promissory note to repay it over 10 years, but the debt remained unpaid. In 1961, Confesor executed a second promissory note acknowledging the outstanding debt and promising to pay it by June 1961. 2) The court held that prescription does not discharge a debt if there is acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor, as in this case with the second promissory note. The pre-existing obligation from the first note was sufficient consideration to support the new promise to pay in the second note. 3) The court also held that the conjugal partnership of Confesor and Villaf

Uploaded by

Maria Isabella Miralles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views1 page

Development Bank of The Philippines (DBP) v. Adil, Confesor and Villafuerte, Et Al., G.R. No. L-48889, 11 May 1989.

1) Spouses Confesor and Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan in 1940 and executed a promissory note to repay it over 10 years, but the debt remained unpaid. In 1961, Confesor executed a second promissory note acknowledging the outstanding debt and promising to pay it by June 1961. 2) The court held that prescription does not discharge a debt if there is acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor, as in this case with the second promissory note. The pre-existing obligation from the first note was sufficient consideration to support the new promise to pay in the second note. 3) The court also held that the conjugal partnership of Confesor and Villaf

Uploaded by

Maria Isabella Miralles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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

L-48889, 11 May 1989.


[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?
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.

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