PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HERMOGENES HIPOLITO and LEONOR JUNSAY, defendants-appellees. G.R. No.

L-16463

!%itten eCt%a8udicial de ands constitute self-se%vin" evidenceD and t#at defendant $ipolitoBs lette% of 2e'%ua%& 16, 1959 cannot 'e conside%ed as an ac5no!led" ent of inde'tedness. Lo!e% cou%t dis issed t#e co plaint= %uled t#at t#e / p%o isso%& notes constituted 1 sin"le o'li"ation, t#at t#e last p%o isso%& note dated June ,3, 1941, s#ould 'e conside%ed as t#e t%ue date of t#e !%itten cont%act, f%o !#ic# t#e 1--&ea% p%esc%iptive pe%iod and suc# pe%iod #as 'een suspended fo% , &ea%s, 4 ont#s and siCteen 16 da&s 9'& %eason of ?@ No. 3,< until said @%de% !as decla%ed unconstitutional.

June 18, 1959 a co plaint !as filed alle"in" t#at defendant $e% o"enes $ipolito and Leono% Junsa& o'tained va%ious su"a% c%op loans f%o plaintiff (N) t#%ou"# its *icto%ias )%anc#, evidenced '& p%o isso%& notes. +#e a ount of t#e notes !as a total of (9,69,.--. .efendants onl& paid (3,9-5.61, leavin" a 'alance of (6,/86.39, !#ic#, added to acc%ued inte%est of (5,,13.34, su ed up to (11,999./3 as of Janua%& 1/, 195/.

ISSUE= E#et#e% o% not t#e defendantBs denial of t#e alle"ations constitute as "%ounds fo% t#e dis issal of t#e co plaint RULING% N@. +#e dis issal is e%%oneous. In a motion to dismiss defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations of fact contained in the complaint. 1n eCa ination of t#e co plaint #e%ein does not indicate clea%l& t#at p%esc%iption #as set in. @n t#e cont%a%&, it is 'elied '& t#e alle"ation conce%nin" defendantBs offe% of pa& ent ade on 0a& /, 195/. 7uc# offe% #&pot#eticall& ad itted in t#e otion, !o%5ed as a %ene!al of t#e o'li"ation. An offer of payment works as a renewal of the obligation and prevents prescription from setting in. 3t is t%ue t#at defendants attac#ed to t#e otion a 8oint affidavit of e%it !#e%ein t#e& den& #avin" ade an offe% of a plan of pa& ent. +#e denial, 'ein" a cont%a%& ave% ent of fact, !ould 'e p%ope% in t#e ans!e% to t#e co plaint 'ut not in a otion fo% dis issal, fo% t#e cont%adicto%& alle"ations !ould %e;ui%e p%esentation of evidence . Denial of allegations in a complaint is not proper in a motion to dismiss. ** A denial of an allegation of a complaint, as for example the denial of an offer of payment which would prevent prescription from setting in, would be proper in the answer to the complaint but not in a motion for dismissal, for the contradictory allegations would require presentation of evidence +#e sa e is t%ue of t#e ot#e% alle"ations in t#e co plaint conce%nin", t#e de ands fo% pa& ent sent '& plaintiff upon defendants and t#e pa%tial pa& ents ade '& t#e , all o% so e of !#ic# a& #ave a ate%ial 'ea%in" on t#e ;uestion of p%esc%iption. 3n ot#e% !o%ds, t#e "%ound fo% dis issal not 'ein" indu'ita'le, t&! lo'!" (o)"t s&o)ld &a*! d!f!""!d d!t!"+ination of t&! iss)! )ntil aft!" t"ial of t&! (as! on t&! +!"its, +#e o%de% appealed f%o p%oceedin"s is set aside and t#e case is %e anded to t#e lo!e% cou%t fo% fu%t#e%

.espite %epeated de ands, defendants failed and %efused to pa& said a ount. 0a& /, 195/ - defendants !ent to 1tt&. 2%ancis 3. 0edel of t#e le"al depa%t ent of plaintiff4s *icto%ias '%anc# and offe%ed a plan of pa& ent of t#e account 2o% %easons un5no!n to plaintiff and p%o'a'l& due to t#e t%ansfe% of defendant $ipolito as supe%visin" teac#e% to so e ot#e% p%ovince, #is p%oposed plan of pa& ent did not ate%iali6e 7aid offe% of plan of pa& ent !as an ac5no!led" ent of defendants4 8ust and valid o'li"ation.

+#e p%a&e% is fo% t#e cou%t to o%de% defendants to pa& to plaintiff t#e said a ount of (11,999./3, !it# acc%ued annual inte%est t#e%eon 9 %ate of 5: f%o Janua%& 1/, 195/ up to t#e date of pa& ent, plus atto%ne&4s fees e;uivalent to 1-:.< .efendants oved fo% a 'ill of pa%ticula%s denied.

.efendants oved to dis iss on t#e "%ound t#at plaintiff4s cause of action al%ead& p%esc%i'ed. attac#ed to t#e otion= a 8oint affidavit and defendants ave%%ed t#at t#e& neve% ade an& ac5no!led" ent of inde'tedness no% offe%ed a plan of pa& ent, 'ut on t#e cont%a%& #ad al!a&s aintained t#at plaintiff4s action #ad p%esc%i'ed. Plaintiffs opposition - contendin" t#at t#e p%esc%iptive pe%iod #ad 'een suspended '& >?@ No. 3,, 5no!n as t#e 0o%ato%iu La!,> and inte%%upted, pu%suant to 1%ticle 19/3 of t#e old Aivil Aode, '& plaintiffBs !%itten eCt%a-8udicial de ands as !ell as '& defendantsB ac5no!led" ent of t#e inde'tedness. !f!ndants "!pl# to plaintiff$s opposition - citin" )ac#%ac# 0oto%s Ao., 3nc. v. A#ua +ia $ian, stated t#at ?@. No. 3,, if at all, suspended t#e p%esc%iptive pe%iod >onl& fo% ,&%s, 4 ont#s and 16 da&s, f%o 0a%c# 1-, 1945, o% onl& up to Jul& ,6, 1948,> - t#at t#e alle"ed