Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nemarco V Tecson

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    25 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case. The case involved National Marketing Corporation attempting to revive a previous judgment against Miguel Tecson over 10 years after the initial judgment. The lower court dismissed it as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed that under Article 13 of the Civil Code, a "year" refers to 365 days, not calendar years. Therefore, the 10 year period for reviving the judgment expired on December 19, 1965, two days before National Marketing Corporation filed the case.

    Original Description:

    Nemarco vs. Tecson; Persons and Family Relations; Civil Law; Case Digest

    Original Title

    Nemarco v Tecson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case. The case involved National Marketing Corporation attempting to revive a previous judgment against Miguel Tecson over 10 years after the initial judgment. The lower court dismissed it as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed that under Article 13 of the Civil Code, a "year" refers to 365 days, not calendar years. Therefore, the 10 year period for reviving the judgment expired on December 19, 1965, two days before National Marketing Corporation filed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Nemarco V Tecson

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case. The case involved National Marketing Corporation attempting to revive a previous judgment against Miguel Tecson over 10 years after the initial judgment. The lower court dismissed it as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed that under Article 13 of the Civil Code, a "year" refers to 365 days, not calendar years. Therefore, the 10 year period for reviving the judgment expired on December 19, 1965, two days before National Marketing Corporation filed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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:  When it is not a leap year, December
     Order is affirmed 21 to December 21 constitutes a year
     
    RATIONALE:
     The issue is thus confined to the date  Interpretation of "years" in the Civil
    on w/c the 10 yrs from 12/21/55 Code is limited to 356 days (article 13)
    expired.

    You might also like