Respondent Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc., a Philippine corporation, is registered as (VAT) entity. On eptem!er "#, $##%, respondent filed a claim for ref&nd'credit of inp&t VAT for the period (&ly ), $##$ to eptem!er "#, $##$ in the total amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$ ,ith the petitioner (CIR), thro&gh (-OF). On e.en date, respondent filed a Petition for Re.ie, / ,ith the CTA for the ref&nd'credit of the same inp&t VAT. The case ,as doc0eted as CTA Case 1o. /#23 and ,as raffled to the econd -i.ision of the CTA. In the Petition for Re.ie,, respondent alleged that for the period (&ly ), $##$ to eptem!er "#, $##$, it generated and recorded 4ero5rated sales in the amo&nt of P)"),/+),"++.##, * ,hich ,as paid6 that for the said period, it inc&rred and paid inp&t VAT amo&nting to P",+)$,#**.)% from p&rchases and importation attri!&ta!le to its 4ero5rated sales6 )# and that in its application for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the -OF it only claimed the amo&nt of P",*+),)$".*$. )) In response, petitioner filed his Ans,er, raising the follo,ing special and affirmati.e defenses, among others, that Petitioner m&st pro.e that the claim ,as filed ,ithin the t,o ($) year period prescri!ed in ection $$+ of the Ta7 Code6 Trial ens&ed, after ,hich, on (an&ary %, $##*, the econd -i.ision of the CTA rendered a -ecision partially granting respondent8s claim for ref&nd'credit. The CTA r&les that In compliance ,ith the third re9&isite, petitioner filed its administrati.e claim for ref&nd on eptem!er "#, $##% (:7hi!it ;1;) and the present Petition for Re.ie, on eptem!er "#, $##%, !oth ,ithin the t,o ($) year prescripti.e period from the close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made, ,hich is from eptem!er "#, $##$. The econd -i.ision of the CTA, ho,e.er, denied petitioner8s <otion for Partial Reconsideration for lac0 of merit. Petitioner th&s ele.ated .ia a Petition for Re.ie, to the CTA En Banc ,hich affirmed the econd -i.ision8s -ecision allo,ing the partial ta7 ref&nd'credit in fa.or of respondent. =o,e.er, as to the rec0oning point for co&nting the t,o5 year period, the CTA :n >anc r&led? Petitioner arg&es that the administrati.e and @&dicial claims ,ere filed !eyond the period allo,ed !y la, and hence, the honora!le Co&rt has no @&risdiction o.er the same. In addition, petitioner f&rther contends that respondentAs filing of the administrati.e and @&dicial BclaimsC effecti.ely eliminates the a&thority of the honora!le Co&rt to e7ercise @&risdiction o.er the @&dicial claim. ISSES 1. For purposes of computing the 2 year prescriptive period, should Article 13 of the Civil Code apply which provides that a year is euivalent to 3!" days or the Administrative Code which provides that a year is 3!# days. 2. $hether the rec%oning of the 2 year prescriptive period commences from the close of the ta&a'le uarter when the sales were made or from the time the input (A) was paid. 3. $hether or not the filing of the *udicial claim which was simultaneous with the administrative claim was premature. R!ING 1. "2# days p&rs&ant to the Administrati.e Code. In Commissioner of Internal Re.en&e .. Primeto,n Property Dro&p, Inc., %+ ,e said that as !et,een the Ci.il Code, ,hich pro.ides that a year is e9&i.alent to "23 days, and the Administrati.e Code of )+*/, ,hich states that a year is composed of )$ calendar months, it is the latter that m&st pre.ail follo,ing the legal ma7im, Ee7 posteriori derogat priori. $. The $ year prescripti.e period shall rec0on from close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made and not from the date of payment. The former applies to ref&nds or ta7 credits of the inp&t ta7 ,hile the latter refers to the reco.ery of ta7 erroneo&sly or illegally collected. In the case at !ar, ,hat is in.ol.es a ta7 ref&nd or a ta7 credit. =ence, the former shall pre.ail. ". &!section (A) of the said pro.ision states that ;any VAT5registered person, ,hose sales are 4ero5rated or effecti.ely 4ero5rated may, ,ithin t,o years after the close of the ta7a!le 9&arter ,hen the sales ,ere made, apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit certificate or ref&nd of credita!le inp&t ta7 d&e or paid attri!&ta!le to s&ch sales.; The phrase ;,ithin t,o ($) years 7 7 7 apply for the iss&ance of a ta7 credit certificate or ref&nd; refers to applications for ref&nd'credit filed ,ith the CIR and not to appeals made to the CTA. This is apparent in the first paragraph of s&!section (-) of the same pro.ision, ,hich states that the CIR has ;)$# days from the s&!mission of complete doc&ments in s&pport of the application filed in accordance ,ith &!sections (A) and (>); ,ithin ,hich to decide on the claim.