Overseas Bank v. Juan · G.R. L-46541

Petitioner: Overseas Bank
Respondent: Juan
Citation: G.R. No. L-46541
Court: Supreme Court
Decided: December 28, 1979

Summary

The Overseas Bank of Manila sued Teodosio Valenton and Andres A. Juan for recovery of P150,000 debt plus interest. The trial court dismissed the case for prescription, ruling that written demands without specified payment periods interrupt prescription for one day only. The Supreme Court reversed, establishing the crucial principle that written extrajudicial demands completely interrupt the prescriptive period, wiping out elapsed time and starting anew from receipt of demand. This landmark ruling clarified the distinction between interruption and mere suspension of prescription periods under Articles 1144 and 1155 of the Civil Code, significantly affecting debt collection practices in Philippine jurisprudence.

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Jean Tan v. Republic G.R. No. 193443
Morales v. Gonzaga G.R. No. L-52278
Bohol v. Republic G.R. No. 227887
Batungbacal v. Republic G.R. No. 204377
Philippine National Bank v. Osete G.R. No. L-24997
Osorio v. Tan Jongko G.R. No. L-8262
Philippine National v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-27117
Philippine National v. Dionisio G.R. No. L-18342
Pacific Commercial v. Aquino G.R. No. L-10274
Saladas v. Franklin Baker Company G.R. No. L-13419

Featured in research

In-depth Intellegal research that discusses this case.

Prescription of Actions and Property in the Philippines

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · December 28, 1979

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.