Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Intestate Estate of Palanca Vs

    Uploaded by

    erika
    The petitioner, a creditor of the late Justo Palanca, held a promissory note dated January 30, 1952 for P26,900 plus 12% annual interest. The respondent, representing the estate of Palanca, argued that the petitioner's right to claim the credit had prescribed under the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that prescription should be appreciated because more than 10 years had passed since the date of the promissory note, making the obligation demandable and subject to the 10-year prescriptive period for written contracts under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Intestate Estate of Palanca Vs

    Uploaded by

    erika
    18 views1 page
    The petitioner, a creditor of the late Justo Palanca, held a promissory note dated January 30, 1952 for P26,900 plus 12% annual interest. The respondent, representing the estate of Palanca, argued that the petitioner's right to claim the credit had prescribed under the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that prescription should be appreciated because more than 10 years had passed since the date of the promissory note, making the obligation demandable and subject to the 10-year prescriptive period for written contracts under the Civil Code.

    Original Title

    Intestate Estate of Palanca vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, a creditor of the late Justo Palanca, held a promissory note dated January 30, 1952 for P26,900 plus 12% annual interest. The respondent, representing the estate of Palanca, argued that the petitioner's right to claim the credit had prescribed under the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that prescription should be appreciated because more than 10 years had passed since the date of the promissory note, making the obligation demandable and subject to the 10-year prescriptive period for written contracts under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views1 page

    Intestate Estate of Palanca Vs

    Uploaded by

    erika
    The petitioner, a creditor of the late Justo Palanca, held a promissory note dated January 30, 1952 for P26,900 plus 12% annual interest. The respondent, representing the estate of Palanca, argued that the petitioner's right to claim the credit had prescribed under the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that prescription should be appreciated because more than 10 years had passed since the date of the promissory note, making the obligation demandable and subject to the 10-year prescriptive period for written contracts under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Intestate Estate of Palanca vs. Vda.

    de Palanca
    G.R. No. L-29900
    June 28, 1974

    Fernando, J.:

    Facts:
    Petitioner George Pay, creditor of Late Justo Palanca, holds a promissory note from the
    latter promising to pay P26,900 with 12% interest per annum. Petitioner now claims this
    credit against the estate of Palance. Respondent opposes such as the rights of the
    petitioner already prescribed. The promissory note was dated on January 30, 1952
    payable on demand. It was then contested by the respondent that more than 10 years
    has already transpired from such date.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the prescription should be appreciated

    Held:
    Yes. Article 1179 of the Civil Code provides: "Every obligation whose performance does
    not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the
    parties, is demandable at once. The obligation being due and demandable, it would
    appear that the filing of the suit after fifteen years was much too late. For again,
    according to the Civil Code, which is based on Section 43 of Act No. 190, the
    prescriptive period for a written contract is that of ten years.

    You might also like