Pay vs. Vda. de PalancaNo. L-29900June 28, 1974When Payable on DemandFACTS: Petitioner George Pay is a creditor of the Late Justo Palanca. Petitioners claim is based on a promissory note dated January 30, 1952where Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca promised to pay petitioner the amount go 26,900 PHP with interest at the rate of 12% per annum upon receipt by either of the undersigned of cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand. Petitioner is now seeking his claim to Segundina Chua de Palancathe surviving spouse of the late Justo Palanca who he appointed as administratrix of a certain piece of property. The surviving spouse refused to be appointed as the administratrix; that the property sought to be administered no longer belonged to the debtor and that the right of petitioner has already prescribed. ISSUE: Whether a creditor is barred by prescription to collect on a promissory note executed more than fifteen (15) years earlier this petition. HELD: No, he is barred by prescription. Since the note was dated on January 30, 1952 it is clear that more than ten (10) years has already transpired from that time until this date. Thus, the action of creditor has definitely prescribed.Even if the petitioner is assailing the validity of the refusal of the surviving spouse, the question of prescription need only to be answered. The obligation being due and demandable, it would appear that the filing of the suit after fifteen (15) years was much too late considering that under the Civil Code the prescriptive period for a written contract is that of ten (10) years.