G.R. No. 96490 - Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO vs. Calica

On February 10, 1940, spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan of ₱2,000.00 from the Agricultural and Industrial Bank (AIB), now the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), evidenced by a promissory note binding them to pay in ten equal yearly amortizations.
The loan remained unpaid after ten years, and the remedy on the 1940 promissory note became barred by prescription.

On April 11, 1961, Patricio Confesor, then a Member of Congress, executed a new promissory note wherein he acknowledged the 1940 obligation, promised payment on or before June 15, 1961, and agreed to mortgage foreclosure upon failure to pay. He also stipulated that any government back‐pay certificate could be applied to the debt.
Upon nonpayment by the specified date, DBP filed suit on September 11, 1970 in the City Court of Iloilo City for recovery of the loan with interest, attorney’s fees and costs.

The City Court rendered judgment on December 27, 1976 in favor of DBP, awarding principal, accrued interest, attorney’s fees (10% of claim) and costs.
On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo City reversed and dismissed the complaint on April 28, 1978, holding (a) that prescription could not be waived by the second note and (b) that the husband alone could not bind the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent.

DBP filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that (a) prescription may be renounced or waived by a new promise, and (b) the second promissory note binds the conjugal partnership as a valid obligation contracted by the husband as administrator.

Whether a debt already barred by prescription may be revived and enforced by a new promissory note acknowledging the prescribed obligation.
Whether Patricio Confesor, by signing the second promissory note, validly bound the conjugal partnership without express consent of his spouse under the Civil Code.