Benito Gonzales v. Florentino de Jose

Summary

This case involved the recovery of amounts from two promissory notes executed in 1922 promising payment 'as soon as possible.' Plaintiff filed suit in 1934 to collect the debts. The Supreme Court ruled that while Article 1128 of the Civil Code applied to obligations without fixed terms where the creditor intends to grant the debtor time for performance, requiring court determination of the payment period, the action to request such court determination had prescribed under the ten-year limitation period in Section 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court distinguished between the action to fix the payment period and the action to recover the debt amount, holding both subject to prescription rules. This decision clarifies the intersection between substantive civil obligations and procedural limitation periods in debt collection cases.