This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, private respondent counters that prescription is not apparent in the complaint because the maturity date of the Home Notes attached thereto is not the time of accrual of petitioner's action. Relying on Elido, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[11] private respondent insists that the action accrued only on July 20, 1995, when demand to pay was made on petitioner. Private respondent also points out that since both the trial court and the appellate court found that prescription is not apparent on the face of the complaint, such factual finding should therefore be binding on this Court. | |||||