2023-10-13 06:28:39
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on the merits filed against the ruling handed down by the Court of Valparaíso, which confirmed the basic ruling that accepted a claim for prescription, filed by an individual against the Playa Ancha University of Sciences. of Education.
The plaintiff maintained that she completed undergraduate studies at the university between 1998 and 2002, which were financed through the university credit solidarity fund, regulated by Law No. 19,287. Once she graduated, she began to pay the loan, suspending the payment during the years 2009 to 2011 for postgraduate studies, resuming her income statement in 2012, the last year that she complies with the obligation; Therefore, as the five-year period for collection has elapsed, she requests a declaration of prescription of the debt and the respective actions.
In its defense, the University argued that the failure to comply with the obligation resulted in the application of article 9 of Law No. 19,287 and, ultimately, a credit payment plan was established in nine annual installments from the years 2012 to 2021. , which are fully in force and cannot be declared time-barred.
The court of first instance granted the claim and declared the prescription of the debt and the civil actions, considering that, “(…) since December 30, 2012, the debt has been delinquent and the date of subscription of the the promissory notes, which correspond to the moment in which the loans of the money occurred and the prolonged inactivity of the parties in order to collect and pay the credit in question, respectively, it is clear that the time required for the prescription to take place has elapsed. termination requested by the plaintiff”; decision that was confirmed by the Court of Valparaíso in an appeal.
Against this last ruling, the defendant filed an appeal on the merits, accusing the violation of articles 1698, 2503, 2514 et seq. of the Civil Code, article 76 of Law No. 18,591, article 11 of Law No. 19,287 and the articles 1, 2, 3, 144, 253 et seq., 341 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellant maintained that each of the installments from 2013 to 2021, established in accordance with article 11 of Law No. 19,287, would have become payable on December 31 of the respective annuities and from each of said dates the the limitation period for executive and ordinary actions and with respect to exchange action, only the installments that go from 2012 to 2017, both annuities inclusive, would be prescribed and, it points out regarding the ordinary actions emanating from the University Credit Solidarity Fund Agreement. , only the installments corresponding to the years 2012 to 2013 could be considered prescribed, given that for the installments of the successive years ranging from 2014 to 2018, at the time of the filing and notification of the claim, the collection actions were fully in force. , since the 5-year period required by law for the prescription of the ordinary action has not elapsed for each one.
The highest Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, after reasoning that, “(…) established as a factual assumption that the debtor fulfilled her obligation to declare income in 2012, being in arrears since December 30 of the same year, It was necessary to conclude, as the sentencing judges correctly did, that the obligation became payable from this last date from which the limitation period of the action to demand compliance must be computed and not as the appellant tries to maintain from the expiration of each installment. individual corresponding to the years 2012 to 2018.”
For greater detail, the ruling specifies that, “(…) the applicable law is that in force at the time in which the obligation was contracted by the debtor, which allowed the amount of the debt to be fixed in a single installment, which determines that the action of ordinary collection, in accordance with the provisions of articles 2514 and 2515 of the Civil Code, as of the date of notification of the claim in question on December 5, 2019, it was statute-barred.”
Based on the above, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on the merits, leaving the first-degree ruling that declared the debt and the civil actions arising from it time-barred.
See rulings Supreme Court Rol Nº20,687-2022, Valparaíso Court Rol Nº10-2022 and 2nd Civil Court of Valparaíso RIT C-3071-2019.
#Prescription #debt #collection #actions #university #solidarity #loan #confirmed #Supreme #Court