1. Villarroel vs. Estrada, 71 Phil.

140 , December 19, 1940

Case Title : JUAN F. VILLARROEL, recurrente y apelante, contra BERNARDINO ESTRADA, recurrido y apelado.Case
Nature : SOLICITUD de revision mediante certiorari.
Syllabi Class : CONTRATOS|PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA
Syllabi:
1. CONTRATOS; PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA; OBLIGACIN MORAL COMO
CONSIDERACIN DE UN CONTRATO.+
2. CONTRATOS; PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA; ID.+

Docket Number: No. 47362

Counsel: D. Felipe Agoncillo, D. Crispn Oben

Ponente: AVANCEA

Dispositive Portion:
Se confirma la sentencia apelada, con las costas al apelante. As se ordena.

2.
Ansay, et al. vs. Nat'l Development Co., et al., 107 Phil. 997 , April 29, 1960
Case Title : PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., defendants and appellees.Case Nature : APPEAL from an order of
the Court of First Instance of Manila. Gatmaitan, J.
Syllabi Class : NATURAL OBLIGATIONS|ELEMENT OF; VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT
Syllabi:
1. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS; ELEMENT OF; VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT; WHEN RETENTION CAN BE
ORDERED.-
An element of natural obligation before it can he cognizable by the court is voluntary fulfillment by the obligor.
Retention can be ordered only after there has been voluntary performance.
2. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS; BONUS NOT DEMANDABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; EXCEPTION.-
A bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when it is made a part of the wage or salary
compensation. (Philippine Education Co. vs. CIR and the Union of Philippine Education Co. Employees (NLU), 92
Phil., 381; 48 Off. Gaz. 5278.) Hence, the grant thereof does not generally constitute a natural obligation on the
part of the company.

Docket Number: No. L-13667

Counsel: Celso A. Fernandez, Juan C. Jimenez

Ponente: PARS

Dispositive Portion:
Premises considered, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

3. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) vs. Adil, 161 SCRA 307 , May 11, 1989
Case Title : DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and
SPOUSES PATRICIO CONFESOR and JOVITA VILLAFUERTE, respondents.Case Nature :
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Br. II. Adil,
J.
Syllabi Class : Civil Law|Prescription|Waiver of right to prescription|Conjugal Partnership
Syllabi:
1. Civil Law; Prescription; Waiver of right to prescription; Case at bar.-
The right to prescription may be waived or renounced. Article 1112 of Civil Code provides:
Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already
obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future. Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly
renounced when the renunciation results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right
acquired. There is no doubt that prescription has set in as to the first promissory note of
February 10, 1940. However, when respondent Confesor executed the second promissory note
on April 11,1961 whereby he promised to pay the amount covered by the previous promissory
note on or before June 15, 1961, and upon failure to do so, agreed to the foreclosure of the
mortgage, said respondent thereby effectively and expressly renounced and waived his right to
the prescription of the action covering the first promissory note. This Court had ruled in a similar
case that"x x x when a debt is already barred by prescription, it cannot be enforced by the
creditor. But a new contract recognizing and assuming the prescribed debt would be valid and
enforceable x x x. Thus, it has been heldWhere, therefore, a party acknowledges the
correctness of a debt and promises to pay it after the same has prescribed and with full
knowledge of the prescription he thereby waives the benefit of prescription.
2. Same; Same; Same; Conjugal Partnership; Husband as administrator of the conjugal
partnership under Art. 165 of the Civil Code.-
WE disagree. Under Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the
conjugal partnership. As such administrator, all debts and obligations contracted by the husband
for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, are chargeable to the conjugal partnership. No doubt,
in this case, respondent Confesor signed the second promissory note for the benefit of the
conjugal partnership. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation.
3. Same; Same; Same; Effects of a new express promise to pay a debt.-
This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to
pay the debt. The consideration of the new promissory note is the pre-existing obligation under
the first promissory note. The statutory limitation bars the remedy but does not discharge the
debt. A new express promise to pay a debt barred xxx will take the case from the operation of
the statute of limitations as this proceeds upon the ground that as a statutory limitation merely
bars the remedy and does not discharge the debt, there is something more than a mere moral
obligation to support a promise, to wita preexisting debt which is a sufficient consideration for
the new promise; the new promise upon this sufficient consideration constitutes, in fact, a new
cause of action. x x x x x It is this new promise, either made in express terms or deduced from
an acknowledgment as a legal implication, which is to be regarded as reanimating the old
promise, or as imparting vitality to the remedy (which by lapse of time had become extinct) and
thus enabling the creditor to recover upon his original contract.

Division: FIRST DIVISION

Docket Number: No. L-48889

Ponente: GANCAYCO

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition is reversed and set aside and another decision
is hereby rendered reinstating the decision of the City Court of Iloilo City of December 27, 1976,
without pronouncement as to costs in this instance. This decision is immediately executory and
no motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration shall be granted.