Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > August 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2187 August 20, 1948 - MARIA PALMA, ET AL. v. FERNANDO CELDA

081 Phil 416:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2187. August 20, 1948.]

MARIA PALMA and ABUNDIO LOS BAÑES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FERNANDO CELDA, Defendant-Appellee.

Nicolas B. Centeno for Appellants.

R. A. Espino for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


PRESCRIPTION; WHEN SUSPENDED BY WAR; CASE AT BAR. — The statute of limitations is suspended by war, rebellion, or insurrection, "when the regular course of justice is interrupted to such an extent that courts cannot be kept open." (España v. Lucido, 8 Phil., 419.) In the present case the lower court took judicial notice of the fact, not disputed by appellants, that in the uninvaded parts of Iloilo, where the majority of the municipalities are situated, the Commonwealth courts continued functioning regularly for the duration of the war, while in the occupied areas there were courts established by the Philippine Executive Commission and the occupation Republic of the Philippines. There was no material obstacle to plaintiffs’ filing their complaint before the expiration of the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


Appellants’ complaint was filed on June 8, 1946, to collect sums of money based on commitments made by defendant in a document executed on July 21, 1934, that is, 11 years, 10 months and 17 days before the filing of the complaint.

Invoking sections 43 and 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 1 (e) of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

On August 30, 1946, the lower court held that plaintiffs’ cause of action had prescribed and dismissed the complaint, with costs against plaintiffs, who appealed.

Appellants seek our support in favor of the theory that war suspends the running of the statute of limitations. If the theory is upheld, by deducting the more than three years’ duration of the war, there would be less than ten years from the time of the execution of the document to the filing of the complaint, hence, the complaint should not have been dismissed.

No showing has been made why we should reverse the doctrine that the statute of limitations is suspended by war, rebellion, or insurrection, "when the regular course of justice is interrupted to such an extent that courts cannot be kept open." (España v. Lucido, 8 Phil., 419.) The reason of the doctrine is obvious. When there are no competent courts to take cognizance of an action, failure to file it cannot be held against a plaintiff. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. Plaintiff having been precluded without his fault from filing his complaint, it is evident that there is no sense of justice in not suspending the statute in his case.

In the present case the lower court took judicial notice of the fact, not disputed by appellants, that in the uninvaded parts of Iloilo, where the majority of the municipalities are situated, the Commonwealth courts continued functioning regularly for the duration of the war, while in the occupied areas there were courts established by the Philippine Executive Commission and the occupation Republic of the Philippines. There was no material obstacle to plaintiffs’ filing their complaint before the expiration of the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.

The appealed order is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, Acting C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-576 August 4, 1948 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO NAVARRO Y CASTRO

    081 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-886 August 10, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO LABRA

    081 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-2328 August 18, 1948 - LEE TIAN PO & CO. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    081 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. CA-263 August 19, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO PENESA

    081 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-939 August 19, 1948 - ANITA HAILE VDA. DE REGUERA v. GABINO TANODRA Y OTROS

    081 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-2187 August 20, 1948 - MARIA PALMA, ET AL. v. FERNANDO CELDA

    081 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-2146 August 26, 1948 - FEDERAL FILMS, INC. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    081 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-803 August 27, 1948 - JOSE P. SANDEJAS v. ZACARIAS C. ROBLES

    081 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. L-1263 August 27, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JANAHUDIN PAKAH, ET AL.

    081 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-1787 August 27, 1948 - JOSE S. LOPEZ v. AGUSTIN LIBORO

    081 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-1812 August 27, 1948 - EREMES KOOKOORITCHKIN v. SOLICITOR GENERAL

    081 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-2126 August 27, 1948 - GO KING, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-2221 August 27, 1948 - SIMEON KEMPIS v. NICOLAS BAUTISTA

    081 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-331 August 31, 1948 - CLARA TAMBUNTING DE LEGARDA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO CARRASCOSO

    081 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-1120 August 31, 1948 - INOCENCIO ROSETE v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    081 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-1780 August 31, 1948 - IN RE: NICOLAI SZATRAW v. CONSUELO SORS

    081 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-2227 August 31, 1948 - PABLO ORO v. MARIANO J. VILLANUEVA

    081 Phil 464