NMC vs Tecson

National Marketing Corporation, plaintiff-appellant vs. Miguel Tecson, defendant-appellee

GR no. L-20131

27 August 1969

Facts:

December 21, 1965, National Marketing Corporation filed a complaint, docketed as civil case no. 63701 on the same court, as successor of the Price Stabilization Corporation, against the same defendant from 10 years ago (December 21, 1955, Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Tecson). Defendant Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss the said complaint upon the ground lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of that and prescription of action.

More than ten years have passed a year is a period of 365 days (Art. 13, CCP). Plaintiff forgot that 1960 and 1964 were both leap years so that when this present case was filed it was filed two days too late.

The lower court, then, issued an order of dismissal with regards the article 13 of the civil code. Pursuant to Art. 1144(3) of our Civil Code, an action upon a judgment “must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues,” the issue thus confined to the date on which ten years from December 21, 1955 had expired.

However, National Marketing Corporation insists that the same “is erroneous because a year means a calendar year. There is no question  that when it is not a leap year, December 21 to December 21 of the following year is one year. The case reached its conclusion with the appellant’s theory that contravenes the explicit provision of Article 13 of the civil code.

Issues:

Whether or not the term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days.

Ruling: Yes. The term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days. However, it is said to be unrealistic and if public interest demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the revised administrative code, this may be done through legislative process and not by judicial decree.