NEMARCO v. Tecson (1969)

Nemarco v. Tecson

G.R. No. L-29131

August 27, 1969

FACTS:

·       National Marketing Corporation (plaintiff-appellant)

o   Successor to all properties, assets, and chooses in action of the Prince Stabilization Corporation

·       Miguel D. Tecson (defendants)

o   Miguel D. Tecson (defendant-appellee)

·       Insurance commissioner (petitioner)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       Nov. 14, 1955 - Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment on Civil Case No. 20520 “Prince Stabilization Corporation vs. Miguel D. Tecson”

o   Court ruled ordering the defendant (Tecson and Alto Security and Insurance, Co) to pay join fees, attorney's and costs

o   November 21, 1955: Copy of the decision was served upon the defendants of the case

·       December 21, 1965: NeMarCo filed same civil case against the defendants for the revival of the judgment rendered in said case civil case no. 63701

o   Defendant moved to dismiss case based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof and prescription of action. 

·       Feb. 14, 1966: Court issued

o   Case was filed exactly on December 21, 1965 but more than ten years have passed a year is 365 days (Art. 18, CCP)

o   Plaintiff forgot that 1960 and 1964 are leap years so that when this case was filed, it was filed TWO DAYS too late

o   Court dismissed case concerning Miguel Tecson

·       March 20, 1969: NeMarCo filed appeal to CA; CA certified case to the SC

·       NeMarco (appellant) alleges it was December 21, 1965,

·       Tecson (appellee) maintains that it expired on Dec. 19, 1965.

o   30 days from the notice of judgment

o    when "the laws speak of years it shall be understood that years are of 365 days each"

o   Lower court accepted this view in its appealed order of dismissal

·       Plaintiff-appellant insists that the same is erroneous because a year means a calendar year; since that is being computed is calendar years, a calendar year should be used as the basis of computation. 

ISSUE:

·       Only one question raised

·       Whether or not the present action for the revival of a judgment is barred by statute of limitations

HOLDING/RATIONALE

·       The very conclusion thus reached by appellant shows that its theory contravenes the explicit provision of Art. 13 limiting the connotation of each "year"-- as the term is used in our laws-- to 365 days. 

JUDGMENT:

·       Order is affirmed

RATIONALE:

·       When it is not a leap year, December 21 to December 21 constitutes a year

·       The issue is thus confined to the date on w/c the 10 yrs from 12/21/55 expired.

·       Interpretation of "years" in the Civil Code is limited to 356 days (article 13)