Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Monroy
Case
G.R. No. L-19374
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1964
PNB sought to revive a 1949 judgment against Monroy for unpaid debt. Trial court dismissed, citing prescription. SC reversed, ruling prescription defense waived due to default, and prescriptive period starts from judgment's finality, not rendering.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19374)

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:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
  2. Whether prescription can be applied motu proprio by the court when the defendant has defaulted and failed to raise it as a defense.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.