Title
Balmeo vs. Aragon
Case
G.R. No. L-21555
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1966
A revival suit for a 1953 default judgment was contested over prescriptive period tolling due to installment payments; the court upheld jurisdiction and dismissed improper interlocutory appeals.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21555)

Facts:

  1. Initial Judgment and Revival Suit:
    On February 12, 1963, the Philippine National Bank (respondent) filed a suit in the Municipal Court of Manila (Case No. 106249) to revive a default judgment rendered on January 30, 1953, in Case No. 24339. The default judgment required the defendants, including petitioner Dorotea Balmeo, to pay P214.08, with 9% annual interest on P206.25 from July 16, 1952, plus 10% attorney's fees and costs.

  2. Motion to Dismiss:
    On March 25, 1963, Balmeo and her co-defendants moved to dismiss the revival suit, arguing that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a revival action had lapsed since the default judgment became final and executory on January 30, 1953.

  3. Bank’s Opposition:
    The bank opposed the motion, asserting that the defendants had made several installment payments upon demand, which tolled the prescriptive period. Documents evidencing these demands and payments were attached to the opposition.

  4. Court’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss:
    On April 16, 1963, the Municipal Court denied the motion to dismiss. Balmeo’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

  5. Petition to the Court of First Instance:
    Balmeo, without the concurrence of her co-defendants, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or injunction with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Case No. 54339). On July 1, 1963, the court dismissed the petition de plano, finding it unsubstantial.

  6. Appeal:
    Balmeo appealed the dismissal of her petition.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Municipal Court of Manila had jurisdiction to hear the revival suit.
  2. Whether the Municipal Court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
  3. Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or injunction was proper given the interlocutory nature of the order denying the motion to dismiss.
  4. Whether the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a revival action had lapsed due to the defendants’ installment payments.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.