Philippine National Bank vs. Purificacion Vda. De Villarin, et al.

Philippine National Bank vs. Purificacion Vda. De Villarin, et al.

[G.R. No. L-41036. September 5, 1975.

Facts:

The Philippine National Bank obtained in its favor a judgment which became final and executory on August 11, 1956. the judgment debtor died in 1961, and when the Bank learned of his death, it filed, on July 13, 1965, a petition for issuance of letter of administrative of the intestate estate of the deceased judgment debtor. Thereafter, or on March 17, 1966, the Bank filed a claim against the estate based on the judgment rendered in its favor. The Administratrix opposed the claim on the ground that the decision upon which the claim is based is already unenforceable pursuant to Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code which limits to ten years the prescriptive period within which an action to receive a judgment may be filed.

The Bank countered that its claim has not yet prescribed nor barred by the statute of limitations for although more ten years have already elapsed counted from the time judgment became final and executory, the prescriptive period was interrupted by the partial payment made by the judgment debtor after judgment became executory, indicating his acknowledgment of the existence of the debt.

On September 18, 1967, Porfirio Villarin, Jr. assisted by his mother, Purificacion Vda. de Villarin, likewise filed an opposition to the claim of the petitioner-claimant contending that said claim has been barred by the Statute of Limitations; that the money judgment relied upon by claimant Bank could have been enforced by an independent civil action for revival of judgment under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; and that the failure of the claimant Bank to institute such action for revival of judgment within the ten-year period from the time the judgment became final and executory on August 11, 1965 has watered down its claim to a mere natural obligation which does not grant a right of action to enforce its performance.

Issue:
            Whether or not the claim of the Bank has prescribed, making its claim to a mere natural obligation.

Held:
            No. The Supreme Court held that Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court "a judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action." Appellant Bank contends that its claim has not yet prescribed because its right to file the action to revive the aforesaid money judgment was still subsisting when the judgment debtor Porfirio Villarin died on January 18, 1961 and that its right to file an action to revive said money judgment was, after the death of Porfirio Villarin, converted into a claim enforceable only in the settlement of the intestate estate proceedings of the deceased. As such, it maintains that the applicable period of prescription is not the 10-year period for filing an action to revive a judgment but the period of prescription for the filing of creditor's claim against the judgment debtor's estate under Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

The records show that on July 13, 1965, the appellant Bank filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in the settlement of the intestate estate of Porfirio Villarin and on September 24, 1965, the letters of administration was issued in favor of the widow of Porfirio Villarin, Gregoria Vda. de Villarin. If the money judgment obtained by appellant Bank against Porfirio Villarin became final and executory on August 11, 1955, it has up to August 11, 1965 to file an action to revive the judgment. However, appellant Bank did not actually file an action to revive the money judgment but a claim against the estate of the deceased on March 9, 1966.

Therefore, the claims of the appellant Bank cannot be considered as a natural obligation.