Facts:

The case involves the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as the plaintiff and appellant, and Jose F. Monroy, doing business under the trade name "Avenue Ice Drop Factory," as the defendant and appellee. The events leading to this case began with a complaint filed by PNB in March 1961, seeking to revive a judgment issued by the Manila Court of First Instance in May 1949. This judgment required Monroy to pay PNB the amount of P12,000.00, with interest at a rate of 7% per annum from August 8, 1947, along with 10% attorney's fees and costs. Monroy did not file an answer to the complaint, resulting in his being declared in default. Following the rules of court, PNB presented evidence to support its claims regarding the judgment and the non-payment by Monroy. However, the court dismissed the action, ruling that the claim had already prescribed since more than ten years had elapsed from the original judgment in Ma...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellant: Philippine National Bank (PNB).
   • Defendant and Appellee: Jose F. Monroy, doing business under the trade name "Avenue Ice Drop Factory."

2. Background of the Case:

   • In March 1961, PNB filed a complaint in the Manila Court of First Instance seeking the revival of a judgment rendered in May 1949.
   • The 1949 judgment required Monroy to pay PNB the amount of P12,000.00 with 7% interest from August 8, 1947, plus 10% attorney's fees and costs.

3. Procedural History:

   • Monroy failed to file an answer and was declared in default.
   • PNB proved its allegations regarding the judgment and non-payment.
   • The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action had prescribed because more than ten years had elapsed from May 1949 (date of judgment) to March 1961 (date of filing the complaint).

4. Appeal:

   • PNB appealed the dismissal, arguing that prescription is a defense that must be raised by the defendant, and since Monroy defaulted, it was deemed waived.
   • Monroy did not file a reply to PNB's brief because he had defaulted in the lower court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Prescription as a Defense:

   • Prescription is a defense that must be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant. If the defendant defaults and fails to raise it, the defense is deemed waived, and the court cannot apply it motu proprio.

2. Computation of Prescriptive Period:

   • The ten-year prescriptive period for enforcing a judgment is counted from the date the judgment becomes final, not from the date it is rendered.
   • Since the complaint did not specify when the judgment became final, the trial court could not validly conclude that the action had prescribed.

3. Legal Error:

   • The trial court's dismissal was based on a mistaken legal conclusion regarding the computation of the prescriptive period.