Prescribed judgment to pay: A natural obligation

Prescribed judgment to pay: A natural obligation "My father secured a compromise judgment in his favor in the year 2000. Unfortunately, for various reasons only known to him, he failed to have it executed. When I initially inquired about the matter, I learned that there is a high chance that our right to execution had already prescribed. Consequently, the responsibility of the debtor can only be enforced voluntarily. Is this true?Boni Dear Boni,The answer to your question is yes. A judgment based on compromise just like any other judgment must be brought within 10 years, otherwise, it will be barred by prescription. Pertinently, Article 1144 of Republic Act (RA) 386, otherwise known as the ""Civil Code of the Philippines,"" reads: ""Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:""(1) Upon a written contract ""(2) Upon an obligation created by law""(3) Upon a judgment. (n)"" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In the facts that you have just mentioned, it was stated that the judgment was decided in the year 2000 or about two decades earlier. Succinctly, applying the law on prescriptive period, your right of action for its enforcement was already barred by prescription.At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing nonetheless that a prescribed and an unpaid obligation to pay comes in the nature of a natural obligation. For this purpose, Ansay, et al vs The Board of Directors of the National Development Company, et al. (GR L-13667, April 29, 1960), ponencia of Chief Justice Ricardo Paras, elucidates the nature of a natural obligation, viz:""Appellants contend that there exists a cause of action in their complaint because their claim rests on moral grounds or what in brief is defined by law as a natural obligation.""Since appellants admit that appellees are not under legal obligation to give such claimed bonus that the grant arises only from a moral obligation or the natural obligation that they discussed in their brief, this Court feels it urgent to reproduce at this point, the definition and meaning of natural obligation. ""Article 1423 of the New Civil Code classifies obligations into civil or natural. 'Civil obligations are a right of action to compel their performance. Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by reason thereof.'""It is thus readily seen that an element of natural obligation before it can be cognizable by the court is voluntary fulfillment by the obligor. Certainly, retention can be ordered but only after there has been voluntary performance. But here there has been no voluntary performance. In fact, the court cannot order the performance."" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Following the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, even though your right of action to enforce the obligation to pay may no longer be enforced in court, it is notable though that the same does not prohibit voluntary payment from the obligor. Veritably, the subsequent Article, i.e., Article 1424 of the Civil Code of the Philippines dictates:""Article 1424. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation has lapsed by extinctive prescription, the obligor who voluntarily performs the contract cannot recover what he has delivered or the value of the service he has rendered."" (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.Editor's note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney's Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net" - https://www.affordablecebu.com/