Article 1112

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. 

Renunciation is Unilateral -The renunciation of prescription already acquired is a unilateral act, and does not require the acceptance of the person to be benefited by it. No formality is required for it; it may even be tacit. 

Tacit Renunciation - Where a party acknowledges the correctness of the 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. Or, if after prescription has run, the maker of a note, in a letter to the holder thereof, acknowledges the existence of the debt , but says that an extension of time had been given to him, the case is taken out of prescription.

But a simple acknowledgment, which contains no new and positive promise to pay the debt which has prescribed, such as a promise to pay only one-half, or even a part payment, does not amount to a renunciation of the prescription. 

TITLE

G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE MIDPAINTAO L. ADIL, Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and SPOUSES PATRICIO CONFESOR and JOVITA VILLAFUERTE, respondents.

FACTS

On February 10, 1940 spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan from Development of the Philippines (DBP), with the sum of P2,000.00 php, as evidenced by a promissory note of said date whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the account in ten (10) equal yearly amortizations. As the obligation remained outstanding and unpaid even after the lapse of the aforesaid ten-year period, Confesor, who was by then a member of the Congress of the Philippines, executed a second promissory note on April 11, 1961 expressly acknowledging said loan and promising to pay the same on or before June 15, 1961. Said spouses not having paid the obligation on the specified date, the DBP filed a complaint dated September 11, 1970 in the City Court of Iloilo City against the spouses for the payment of the loan. Defendants-spouses appealed therefrom to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo wherein in due course a decision was rendered on April 28, 1978 reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the complaint and counter-claim with costs against the plaintiff. A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by plaintiff was denied in an order of August 10, 1978. Hence this petition wherein petitioner alleges that the decision of respondent judge is contrary to law and runs counter to decisions of this Court when respondent judge (a) refused to recognize the law that the right to prescription may be renounced or waived; and (b) that in signing the second promissory note respondent Patricio Confesor can bind the conjugal partnership; or otherwise said respondent became liable in his personal capacity. The plaintiff appealed to the supreme court and the decision was reversed in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Iloilo erred on reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the complaint and counter-claim with costs against the plaintiff.

RULING

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.

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. 5 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.

HELD

Yes, the decision subject of the petition was reversed and set aside and another decision was rendered reinstating the decision of the City Court of Iloilo City of December 27, 1976, without pronouncement as to costs in this instance. The decision was immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration has been granted.

Renunciation Void - A renunciation of prescription in advance is void. Thus, no renunciation can be made, at the time of entering into a contract, of the right of pleading a prescription which may thereafter be acquired. And an agreement that the obligations arising from the contract shall not be subject to prescription, is not binding. 

Same; Renunciation by Representatives - Only persons with capacity to alienate property can renounce prescription already obtained. Hence, an administrator or executor is without the power to renounce or waive prescription after it has been acquired in favor of the estate he represents. Neither can a guardian revive against his ward a debt which has prescribed; hence, is a guardian pays a debt of his ward prescribed before his administration began, he will be liable for the amount.

Many thanks & God bless.