NAMARCO VS TECSON Case Digest
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Facts
The National Marketing Corporation filed a complaint on December 21, 1965. It was docketed as Civil Case no. 63701, as successor of the Price Stabilization Corporation. This case was against the same defendant from 10 years ago (PSC vs TECSON).
The defendant, Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of that and prescription of action.
More than 10 years have passed. Plaintiff forgot that 1960 and 1964 were both leap years. This case was filed two (2) days late.
The RTC issued an order of dismissal with regards to article 13 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to Art. 1144(3) of the Civil Code, an action upon a judgement “must be brought within ten years from the time of right action accrues”, the issue thus confined to the date on which ten years from December 21, 1955 had expired.
Yet, NAMARCO insists that the same “is erroneous because a year means a calendar year”. There is no question that when it’s 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.
Issue
Whether or not the term year used in the Article 13 of the Civil Code is limited to 365 days.
Ruling
Yes.
The term year used in the Article 13 of the Civil Code is limited to 365 days. Yet, it is said to be unrealistic. If the public demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the RAC, this will be done through a legislative process and not by a judicial decree.
NAMARCO VS TECSON Case Digest
