Scribd
Upload
81 views

Digest - CIR v. Primetown Property Group

The document discusses a case regarding the repeal of Article 13 of the Civil Code by EO 292. Primetown Property Group applied for a tax refund credit but their petition was dismissed by the Court of Tax Appeals as being filed beyond the two year period prescribed by the NIRC and Article 13. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision due to an interpretation of Article 13. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 292, being the more recent law encompassing legal periods, repeals Article 13. EO 292's implicit repealing clause prevails as its prescription cannot be reasonably reconciled with Article 13.

Uploaded by

Iana Vivien
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views

Digest - CIR v. Primetown Property Group

The document discusses a case regarding the repeal of Article 13 of the Civil Code by EO 292. Primetown Property Group applied for a tax refund credit but their petition was dismissed by the Court of Tax Appeals as being filed beyond the two year period prescribed by the NIRC and Article 13. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision due to an interpretation of Article 13. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 292, being the more recent law encompassing legal periods, repeals Article 13. EO 292's implicit repealing clause prevails as its prescription cannot be reasonably reconciled with Article 13.

Uploaded by

Iana Vivien
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Note: This Cases is in relation to Article 7 Repeal of Laws

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


V.
PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC., RESPONDENT.
CORONA, J.:
FACTS: Primetown Property Group applied for the refund credit for income tax paid in 1997. Their claim
was not acted upon and so Primetown filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals. CTA
dismissed petition as it was filed beyond the prescribed two year period based on the counting of legal
periods prescribed in Article 13 of the Civil Code. Upon petition with the Court of Appeals, this decision
was reversed due to a small technicality in the interpretation of Article 13 of the Civil Code.

People involved: Dates to remember:

 Gilbert Yap  April 14, 1998 – Respondent filed final


Vice Chair, Primetown Property Group adjusted income tax return
 Arturo V. Parcero  April 14, 2000 – Respondent filed a
Revenue District Officer, BIR (Makati) petition for review
 Elizabeth Y. Santos
Revenue Officer

Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC):

“…In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the
date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after
payment”

Article 13 of the Civil Code which states:

“Art. 13. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of
three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours, and nights from
sunset to sunrise. If the months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of
days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last
included.”

EO292 or the Administrative Code of 1987

“ Sec. 31. Legal Periods. - "Year" shall be understood to be twelve calendar months; "month" of thirty
days, unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which case it shall be computed according to the
number of days the specific month contains; "day", to a day of twenty-four hours and; "night" from
sunrise to sunset.

Sec. 27. Repealing clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulation, or portions thereof,
inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. “

ISSUE: Whether or not E.O. 292 repeals Art 13 of the Civil Code.
Note: This Cases is in relation to Article 7 Repeal of Laws

RULING: YES. E.O. 292 repeals Art 13 of the Civil Code. E.O. 292, being the more recent law, and being
that it encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former law, shall prevail. The Supreme Court
Ruled that petition made by CIR was DENIED and the cases was REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals.

Explanation to the Ruling:


Supreme court ruled that the decision of the CA to reverse CTA was correct. However, the basis is
wrong. EO 292 prescribes an implicit repealing clause. For Implicit repealing clause, the test is whether
the subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former law, and they cannot be
logically or reasonably reconciled. Because the Prescription in the E.O. 292 is more recent and it passes
the test of encompassing the entire subject matter in Art 13 of Civil code the prescription for the Legal
periods under E.O. 292 shall prevail.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS:

When can you say there is an implied repeal?

1. When subsequent law is INCOMPATIBLE with those of earlier laws and there are NO EXPRESS
REPEALS.
2. When the law as a provision that says “all laws r parts thereof which are inconsistent with this
Act are hereby repeald or modified accordingly”

What are the requisites for Implied Repeal?

1. Law covers same subject matter


2. When new law is repugnant (contradicts) earlier law

You might also like