Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PNB V Osete

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    29 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crespo, finding that the action by PNB had prescribed. The Court gave three reasons for this ruling: 1) The written demands by PNB did not interrupt prescription because they were not addressed to Crespo; 2) Partial payments do not interrupt prescription under Philippine law unless they are in writing; and 3) More than 10 years had elapsed since the previous court decision, which was the basis for PNB's claim, triggering prescription of the action.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    23. PNB v Osete(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crespo, finding that the action by PNB had prescribed. The Court gave three reasons for this ruling: 1) The written demands by PNB did not interrupt prescription because they were not addressed to Crespo; 2) Partial payments do not interrupt prescription under Philippine law unless they are in writing; and 3) More than 10 years had elapsed since the previous court decision, which was the basis for PNB's claim, triggering prescription of the action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    PNB V Osete

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crespo, finding that the action by PNB had prescribed. The Court gave three reasons for this ruling: 1) The written demands by PNB did not interrupt prescription because they were not addressed to Crespo; 2) Partial payments do not interrupt prescription under Philippine law unless they are in writing; and 3) More than 10 years had elapsed since the previous court decision, which was the basis for PNB's claim, triggering prescription of the action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PNB v OSETE

    GR NO. L-24997 However, the court fond that the written demands were not addressed to Crespo
    July 18, 1968 but rather to Cuya, who did not appeal the decision of the lower court. Hence, it
    By: Gayares has nothing to do with the running prescription as regards to Crespo.
    Topic: Prescription
    Petitioners: Philippine National Bank As to the alleged prtial payments, Art. 1973 of the CC of Spain provided, “The
    Respondents: Teresita Osete, Jose Crespo, Estelita Cuya prescription of actions is interrupted by the commencement of a suit for their
    Ponente: Concepcion, C.J. enforcement, by an extra-judicial demand by the creditor, and by any act of
    acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor.”
    RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: PNB filed a case against Crespo for collection. PNB
    Under the said article, partial payment could act as an acknowledgement of debt
    claimned that no prescription can be availed since it was interrupted. SC ruled
    and interrupt the prescriptive period. However, it was amended by Art. 1155 of the
    based on the following reasons enumerated in the ruling. Crespo won.
    CC of the Philippines, “The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed
    before the court, when there is a written extra-judicial demand by the creditors
    DOCTRINE:
    and when there is any written acknowledgment by the debtor.”
    Not all acts of acknowledgment of a debt interrupt prescription. To produce such
    effect, acknowledgment must be written so that payment, if not coupled with a
    Under this provision, not all acts of acknowledgment of a debt interrupt
    communication signed by the payor, would not interrupt the running period of
    prescription. To produce interruption, the acknowledgment must be written, so
    prescription.
    that payment, if not coupled with a communication signed by the payor, would not
    interrupt the running of the period of prescription.
    FACTS:
     PNB commenced this action to recover from the respondents the sum of
    In this case, it was right that the lower court did not allow PNB to present new
    P522, with interest, attorney’s fees and costs, based upon a judgment in evidence during the course of the trial since it would alter the issue greatly. The
    a civil case, which was held on January 8, 1953.
    current issue is “w/n more than 10 years had elapsed when the present action was
     Cuya and Crespo pleaded prescription of action, whereas the complaint instituted?” If the new evidence were admitted, it would be “w/n the prescription
    was dismissed without prejudice. period was interrupted by the partial payments allegedly made by Crespo?”
     The court rendered judgment in favor of PNB.
     Crespo appealed to the CFI. Therefore, the lower court did not err in the following:
     CFI: Ruled in favor of Crespo based on the ground of prescription. 1. In not admitting the new complaint of PNB, which contained new
    evidence that would alter the issue greatly;
    ISSUE: 2. In not considering that written demands had tolled the running of the
    W/N the lower court erred in favoring Crespo and dismissing the action of PNB prescription period since such demands were not addressed to Crespo;
    upon the ground of prescription of action? 3. In not considering that prescription was interrupted by partial payments
    allegedly made by Crespo; and even if they were considered, it would still
    HELD/RATIO: not have produced the said interruption pursuant to Art. 1155 of the CC;
    NO - It should be noted that the decision of the municipal court became final and 4. In not resolving the issue in favor of PNB;
    executory on January 1953. More than ten years had elapsed when this action was 5. In not giving Art. 1155 the said effect PNB wished for it to have.
    commenced since this was initiated on January 30, 1963.
    Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against PNB.
    PNB alleges that the running of the said period was interrupted by written
    demands and partial payments even if such evidence were not admitted in the
    lower court. In other words, no evidence was introduced.

    You might also like