JUAN VILLAROEL v BERNARDINO ESTRADA

December 19, 1940

On May 9, 1912, Alejandro F. Callao, mother of defendant John F. Villarroel, obtained from the
spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina a loan of P1, 000 payable after seven years (Exhibito A).
Alejandra died, leaving as sole heir to the defendant. Spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina also
died, leaving as sole heir to the plaintiff Bernardino Estrada. On August 9, 1930, the defendant
signed a document (Exhibito B) by which the applicant must declare in the amount of P1, 000, with
an interest of 12 percent per year. This action relates to the collection of this
cantidad.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, which was filed in this action, condemn the defendant to pay
the claimed amount of P1, 000 with legal interest of 12 percent per year since the August 9, 1930
until full pay. He appealed the sentencia.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It will be noted that the parties in the present case are, respectively, the only heirs and creditors of
the original debtor. This action is brought under the defendant's liability as the only son of the
original debtor in favor of the plaintiff contracted, sole heir of primitive loa creditors. It is recognized
that the amount of P1, 000 to which contracts this obligation is the same debt of the mother's
parents sued the demandante.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Although the action to recover the original debt has prescribed and when the lawsuit was filed in
this case, the question raised in this appeal is primarily whether, notwithstanding such requirement,
the action taken is appropriate. However, this action is based on the original obligation contracted
by the mother of the defendant, who has already prescribed, but in which the defendant contracted
the August 9, 1930 (Exhibito B) by assuming the fulfillment of that obligation, as prescribed. Being
the only defendant in the original herdero debtor eligible successor into his inheritance, that debt
brought by his mother in law, although it lost its effectiveness by prescription, is now, however, for a
moral obligation, that is consideration enough to create and make effective and enforceable
obligation voluntarily contracted its August 9, 1930 in B.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Exhibito
chanrobles virtual law library
The rule that a new promise to pay a debt prrescrita must be made by the same person obligated or
otherwise legally authorized by it, is not applicable to the present case is not required in compliance
with the mandatory obligation orignalmente but which would give it voluntarily assume this
obligacion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It confirms the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant. So is
ordena.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, MM., Concur.