Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29900)
Facts:
In George Pay v. Segundina Chua Vda. de Palanca, petitioner George Pay holds a promissory note dated January 30, 1952, signed jointly and severally by the late Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca, whereby they promised to pay Pay ₱26,900.00 with 12% annual interest “upon receipt by either of the undersigned of cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand.” Justo Palanca died on July 3, 1963, leaving his surviving spouse, Segundina Chua Vda. de Palanca, as heir. On August 26, 1967, Pay filed a petition in the lower court seeking the appointment of Segundina as administratrix of a residential dwelling on Taft Avenue, Manila, so that he could assert his claim against the estate. The trial court denied his petition on three grounds: Segundina refused to serve as administratrix, the property no longer belonged to the late debtor, and the claim had prescribed. Pay appealed solely...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29900)
Facts:
- Parties
- Petitioner-Appellant: George Pay, creditor under a promissory note executed by the late Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca.
- Oppositor-Appellee: Segundina Chua Vda. de Palanca, surviving spouse of Justo Palanca, who refused appointment as administratrix of his estate.
- The Promissory Note
- Dated January 30, 1952, signed jointly and severally by Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca; principal sum of ₱26,900 with 12% annual interest.
- Stipulated payment “upon receipt by either of the undersigned of cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand”; petitioner elected to rely on the “upon demand” clause.
- Proceedings Below
- Petition filed August 26, 1967, seeking appointment of Segundina Chua as administratrix over a residential property at 2656 Taft Avenue, Manila (assessed at ₱41,800), to enable presentation of creditor’s claim.
- Lower Court Findings and Decision (July 24, 1968):
- Refusal of the surviving spouse to act as administratrix;
- Property no longer belonged to the debtor;
- Action on the promissory note was demandable at once and, filed after more than ten years, was barred by the prescriptive period. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Whether the action on the promissory note was barred by prescription under the Civil Code’s ten-year period for written contracts.
- Whether other grounds (refusal of appointment as administratrix; property no longer in estate) independently warranted dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)