REGINA Q. ALBA, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, RUDOLFO D. ALBA, PETITIONERS, VS.

NIDA AROLLADO,*
JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, PEDRO AROLLADO, JR.,RESPONDENTS

[ G.R. No. 237140. October 05, 2020 ]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66989

**Facts:**

1. Regina Q. Alba, the sole proprietor of Libra Fishing, sold crude oil and petroleum products to Nida
Arollado on credit starting from 2000.

2. Nida issued three checks for purchases on July 26, 2000, November 12, 2000, and November 27,
2000, which were dishonored by the drawee banks.

3. Regina demanded payment on May 15, 2013, but Nida failed to comply.

4. Regina filed a complaint for a sum of money on June 4, 2013.

**Issue:**

The core issue is the reckoning date of the prescriptive period for actions based upon an oral contract in
a complaint for a sum of money against Nida Arollado, filed by Regina Q. Alba.

**Ruling:**

1. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision, dismissing Regina's
complaint on the ground of prescription.

2. The CA noted that the parties had a verbal contract for the sale of petroleum products on credit, and
Regina had six years from the date of dishonor of the checks to recover the amount owed.

3. Regina contended that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of the last partial
payment or extrajudicial demand.

4. The Supreme Court held that the prescriptive period is six years from the dishonor of the checks.
Regina's action had already prescribed as the complaint was filed on June 4, 2013, exceeding the
allowed period.
5. The Court clarified that not all acts of acknowledgment of debt interrupt prescription, emphasizing
the need for a written acknowledgment under Article 1155 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

6. The last receipt issued to Nida for payment was dated November 21, 2006. Regina could bring an
action to collect any outstanding liability only until November 21, 2012.

7. The Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied, affirming the CA decision.

**Case Digest: G.R. No. 237140 - Regina Q. Alba v. Nida Arollado**

**Facts:**

- Regina Q. Alba, joined by her husband Rudolfo D. Alba, filed a case against Nida Arollado, joined by her
husband Pedro Arollado, Jr.

- The case involves 69 delivery receipts, five of which lack information about prices and transaction
terms, and 63 that provide prices but lack details on payment terms or a promise to pay.

- Three dishonored checks are also part of the dispute, with no clear indication of a promise to pay in
the written contract.

**Issues:**

1. Whether the delivery receipts and dishonored checks constitute a written contract sufficient for the
statute of limitations.

2. If a written contract exists, whether Regina's right to collect a sum of money against Nida has
prescribed.

**Ruling:**

1. The court found that the delivery receipts and dishonored checks do not contain a clear promise to
pay, thus not meeting the requirements of the statute of limitations.

2. Regina's right to collect a sum of money against Nida must be enforced within six years, as per Article
1145 of the Civil Code. The cause of action arises from the breach of contract for non-payment, and the
prescriptive period starts from the date of dishonor.
3. Regina failed to interrupt the prescription through filing before the court, written extrajudicial
demand, or any written acknowledgment of the debt by Nida. The alleged partial payments and demand
letter were deemed insufficient.

4. The last receipt for payment was issued on November 21, 2006. Regina's right to collect outstanding
liability from Nida is limited until November 21, 2012.

5. The Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

*Conclusion:* Regina's action to collect a sum of money against Nida is dismissed due to prescription, as
the filing occurred beyond the six-year period from the date of dishonor.