G.R. No. 1962. October 12, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

5 Phil. 139

[ G.R. No. 1962. October 12, 1905 ]

JOSE PINEDA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. GABINO GASATAYA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N



CARSON, J.:

There was no motion for a new trial in this case, hence the findings
of fact in the decision of the trial court are accepted as correct.

Gabino Gasataya, the defendant, entered into a written agreement
with one Crisanto Pineda, deceased, father of the plaintiffs, whereby
Gasataya promised to pay Pineda the sum of 1,740 pesos and 14 centimos
on or before the 1st day of April, 1887, with interest from that date
at the rate of 20 per cent per annum.

Judgment for principal and interest was rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs, and from this judgment defendant appeals, assigning as
error the failure of the trial court to find that the right of action
had prescribed under the provisions of article 1964 of the Civil Code.

Article 1939 of that code is as follows:

“Prescription which began to run before the
publication of this code shall be governed by the prior laws; but if,
after this code became operative, all the time required in the same for
prescription has elapsed, it shall be effectual, even if according to
said prior laws a longer period of time may be required.”

This is a personal action for the recovery of money, and such
actions prescribe in twenty years from the date when the cause of
action accrues under the laws in force prior to the publication of the
Civil Code, and in fifteen years under the provisions of article 1964
of that code. (Law 63 of Toro, law 5, title 8, book 11 of the Novisima Recopilacion.)

The cause of action in this case accrued on the 1st day of April,
1887, and the Civil Code did not become operative until the 8th day of
December, 1889; therefore on the 19th day of August, 1902, when the
complaint was filed, there had not elapsed the twenty-year period of
prescription of the old law, counting from the date when the cause of
action accrued, nor the fifteen-year period of prescription of the new
law, counting from the date when the Civil Code became operative, and
we are of opinion that the defendant’s claim of prescription can not be
sustained.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the costs of this
instance against the appellant, and at the expiration of twenty days
judgment will be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded
to the court below in order that the judge may proceed in accordance
with law. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.






Date created: April 28, 2014




Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters