Case Digest (G.R. No. 2622)
Facts:
- Teodoro S. Benedicto, as the administrator of the last will and testament of Teodoro Benedicto and Brigida Ledesma, filed a case against Julian Pebizuelo.
- The case originated in the Province of Iloilo and was decided by the Court of First Instance.
- The plaintiff sought to recover a balance of 4,559.05 Mexican pesos, which the defendant acknowledged as owed, plus interest at 15% per annum from September 30, 1894.
- The defendant raised two defenses: a general denial and the defense of prescription, arguing that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The lower court ruled that the debt was not barred, as the defendant had acknowledged it.
- The court found the total amount owed, including interest, to be 11,586.98 Mexican pesos, equivalent to P10,164.01 in Philippine currency.
- The defendant appealed after a motion for a new trial was denied.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled that the debt was not barred by the statute of limitations.
- The applicable period of prescription for the action was determined to be...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court's decision hinged on the defendant's acknowledgment of the debt, which nullified the defense of prescription.
- The court clarified that the case was not about recovering rents but rather a sum of money explicitly acknowledged as due by the defendant.
- The agreement to treat the action as one f...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 2622)
Facts:
The case involves Teodoro S. Benedicto, the administrator of the last will and testament of Teodoro Benedicto and Brigida Ledesma, as the plaintiff and appellee, against Julian Pebizuelo, the defendant and appellant. The events leading to this case took place in the Province of Iloilo, with the judgment being rendered by the Court of First Instance. The action was initiated to recover a balance of 4,559.05 Mexican pesos, which was acknowledged by the defendant as owed to the plaintiff, along with interest at a rate of 15% per annum from September 30, 1894. The defendant presented two defenses: a general denial and the defense of prescription, claiming that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations. The lower court found that the debt had not been barred, as the defendant had acknowledged its existence. The court ruled that the defendant was indeed indebted to the plaintiff for the original sum, which, with int...