Namarco vs. Tecson
29 SCRA 70; No. L-29131
August 27, 1969

Ponente: Concepcion, CJ.

Facts:

• November 14, 1955: the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 20520 ent itl ed “Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Miguel D. Tecson and Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.” o Defendants will jointly and severally pay plaintiff PRATRA the sum of P7,200.00 plus 7% interest plus P500.00 for attorney’s fees , and plus costs. o Defendant Miguel Tecson must indemnify Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.
• November 21, 1955: A copy of the decision was served upon the defendants.
• December 21, 1965: National Marketing Corporation, the successor of Price Stabilization Corporation, filed a complaint, Civil Case No. 63701, against the same defendants for the revival of the judgment rendered in Case No. 20520.
• Defendant Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss said complaint based on the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and prescription of action.
• February 14, 1966: Court issued an order reading which stated that: o Lack of jurisdiction: the matter of jurisdiction must be admitted. o Prescription: Plaintiff admits that court decision became final on December 21, 1955. Case was filed December 21, 1965. The Plaintiff forgot the 1960 and 1964 were leap years and so, more than 10 years have passed. A year having 365 days each (Art 13, Civil Code of the Philippines). o The complaint made by Namarco was dismissed as having been prescribed.

Issue: WON the complaint of Namarco should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and prescription.

HELD: Yes, the complaint is dismissed as having been prescribed.

Ratio:

Article 13 of the Civil Code states “when law speaks of years…its shall be understood that years are of three hundred sicty-five days each.”
• Since 1960 and 1964 are leap years, February having 29 days each leap year, ten years with each having 365 days had expired on December 19, 1965.
• The plaintiff-appelant insists that a year means a calendar year and so, leap years have 366 days. However, this conclusion contravenes the explicit provision of Article 13 of the Civil Code which limits the year as having 365 days only.

Mariategui v CA
205 SCRA 337
1992

Ponente: Bidin, J.

Facts:

• Deceased Lupo Mariategui contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime. He died intestate.
• Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriage executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated unto themselves Lupo’s property. They were able to secure the registration of the lot.
• Lupo’s children by his third marriage filed a complaint stating that they were deprived of their respective shares in the property. They pray f r partition of the estate and the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition.
• CA held that all heirs of Lupo are entitled to equal shares in his estate.
• Lupo’s descendant by the first and second marriages now question the decision.

Issues:
1. WON prescription barred respondents’ right to demand partition of the estate of Lupo.
2. WON private respondents who belatedly filed the action for recognition were able to prove their successional rights over said estate.

HELD: No / Yes. CA decision affirmed.

Ratio:

Issue 1
• CA aprtly held that the private respondents are legitimate children of Lupo from his 3rd marriage.
• Since respondents were found to be legitimate children and heirs, the time limitation prescribed for filing an action for recognition found in Art 285 of the NCC is inapplicable.
• Corollarily, prescription of an action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co-owner.
• Petitioners contend that they have repudiated the co-ownership when they executed the extrajudicial partition excluding respondents and registered the properties in their own names.
• Conditions for Repudiation: o A co-owner repudiates the co-ownership o Such an act of repudiation is clearly made known to the other co-owners o The evidence thereon is clear and conclusive o He has been in possession of the property for the period required by law
• Petitioners’ registration of the estate in their names did not operate as a valid repudiation. Assuming it was valid, prescription hasn’t set in when respondents filed the present action for partition. (They filed the petition 2 months after learning the extrajudicial partition of petitioners.

Issue 2
• The birth certificate of one of the children (Jacinto was presented, and the other 2, although wanting of birth certificates, were found to have enjoyed the same status as Jacinto.
• Moreover, they lived with Lupo until he died despite the death of their mother.