Pay vs. Vda.

de Palanca
No. L-29900
June 28, 1974
When Payable on Demand
FACTS: Petitioner George Pay is a creditor of the Late Justo
Palanca. Petitioners claim is based on a promissory note dated
January 30, 1952where Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales
Vda. de Carlos Palanca promised to pay petitioner the amount go
26,900 PHP with interest at the rate of 12% per annum upon
receipt by either of the undersigned of cash payment from the
Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand. Petitioner
is now seeking his claim to Segundina Chua de Palancathe
surviving spouse of the late Justo Palanca who he appointed as
administratrix of a certain piece of property. The surviving spouse
refused to be appointed as the administratrix; that the property
sought to be administered no longer belonged to the debtor and
that the right of petitioner has already prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether a creditor is barred by prescription to collect on a
promissory note executed more than fifteen (15) years earlier this
petition.
HELD: No, he is barred by prescription. Since the note was dated
on January 30, 1952 it is clear that more than ten (10) years has
already transpired from that time until this date. Thus, the action
of creditor has definitely prescribed.Even if the petitioner is
assailing the validity of the refusal of the surviving spouse, the

question of prescription need only to be answered. The obligation

being due and demandable, it would appear that the filing of the
suit after fifteen (15) years was much too late considering that
under the Civil Code the prescriptive period for a written contract
is that of ten (10) years.