Facts:

• The case involves H. S. Fenwick (appellee) and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera (appellant).
• A judgment was issued on August 4, 1930, ordering the appellant to pay P1,400 plus 12% annual interest from February 11, 1929, and costs of the suit.
• The appellant did not pay the debt despite the judgment.
• On July 5, 1940, the appellant acknowledged the debt and proposed to pay P50 monthly starting August 16, 1940.
• On July 19, 1940, the appellee filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to revive the judgment.
• The trial court dismissed the appellant's defense of prescription, which claimed the right to enforce the judgment had lapsed.
• The court ruled in favor of the appellee, affirming the original judgment and imposing double costs on the appellant for a frivolous appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's defense of prescription.
• The appeal filed by the appellant was deemed ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court supported the trial court's decision, stating the defense of prescription was unfounded.
• The appellant's acknowledgment of the debt on July 5, 1940, interrupted the prescriptive period, negating any claim of prescription.
• The court referenced ...continue reading