Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
7th Judicial Branch
Branch No.____
Cebu City
MILO, Plaintiff
CIVIL CASE No. 245
-versus- For: Collection of Sum of Money
JIFEL, Defendant
x-----------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Before this Court is a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money under
Article 1953 of the New Civil Code filed by herein plaintiff MILO against
defendant JIFEL.
The Antecedent Facts
Defendant borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiff amounting to FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 500,000) evidenced by a promissory note
signed by the Defendant on FEBRUARY 14, 2000. The loan becomes due and
demandable one year after the making of the promissory note.
Upon maturity date, the Defendant failed to pay the obligation and instead
asked for an extension to which the Plaintiff refused. The Plaintiff allegedly made
oral and written demands to the Defendant but the latter still failed to comply with
his obligation.
In his answer, however, the defendant contends that he did not receive any
written demand from the plaintiff. He also argued that assuming he did receive the
demand, the plaintiff still has no cause of action because the debt has already
prescribed.
The Issue
Simply, the issue in this case is whether or not the Plaintiff has cause of
action against the Defendant.
The Ruling
The pertinent portion of Article 1953 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines provides:
A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires
the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the
same kind and quality.
Hence, the defendant has the obligation to return to plaintiff the amount he
borrowed on the date and time that was agreed upon. Failure to comply with the
obligation, gives the plaintiff the right to institute an action against defendant for
the collection of his indebtedness.
However, it should be noted that even if plaintiff has been given the right to
institute an action, the law also gives a period of time within which plaintiff may
assert his right. Failure to file a case during such period shall result in the
prescription of his right of action for the collection of the same. The NCC of the
Philippines gives light to this, to wit:
Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within 10 years from
the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
The right to demand the payment of the loan which plaintiff extended to
defendant as evidenced by the promissory note, commenced from the time the
latter defaulted in his obligation to pay. Since he failed to pay within the one year
period agreed upon, the plaintiff’s right to demand the same started immediately
after the said one year period expired.
According to the aforementioned law, the plaintiff has 10 years within which
to collect the loan from the time the defendant defaulted. After the lapse of the said
period, the plaintiff can no longer compel the defendant to pay as the obligation to
pay has already been converted to moral or natural obligation which cannot be
enforced in court as provided in Article 1423 of the NCC.
Since, 16 years has already lapsed since the obligation fell due, the action
has been barred by prescription.
WHEREFORE, this complaint is dismissed on the ground of prescription.
Costs against the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, March 12, 2018.
Presiding Judge
