Arts 11-12 CUSTOMS

Martinez v. Van Buskirk HORSE NOT

NEGLIGENT
Petitioner is riding a carromata
together with her child along the left
side of the street when a delivery
wagon belonging to the defendant with
a pair of horses came along an ran into
the carromata and wounded Martinez
severely. The defendant presented
evidence that cochero was a good and
reliable and safe cochero. He was
delivering stuff so he tied the driving
lines of the horses to the front end of
the delivery wagon and went inside the
wagon to unload the stuff to be
delivered. But while unloading, another
vehicle drove by whose driver made
some noises, which frightened the
horses and made it run away. He was
thrown from the inside of wag and was
unable to stop the horses. The
coachman is not negligent in leaving
his horse because the performance of
which has not proven to be destructive
or injurious and which have been
generally accepted by society for a
long time that have ripened to a
custom.
Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales CHINESE
CUSTOM NOT PROVEN AS A FACT NO
COMPETENT EVIDENCE
Sy-Kiat is a Chinese national who died
leaving behind personal and real
property in PH. Respondents filed a
petition for the grant of letters of
administration claiming that they are
the deceaseds acknowledge natural
children with a Filipina whom he lived
with for 25 years without the benefit of
marriage. Petitioner who claims that
she is the lawful wife because of their
marriage under Chinese law and
custom opposed the petition. However,
she doesnt have a marriage certificate
because the practice during their time
was for elders to agree on the
marriage and a written document
exchanged just between the parents of
the bride and groom. This Chinese
custom cannot be recognized in PH

because it must be proved as a fact

according to the rules of evidence. The
testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching
cannot be considered as proof of
Chinas law or custom on marriage.
The foreign marriage between Yao Kee
and Siat cannot be considered valid
because existence of foreign law must
be proven as a fact and the marriage
by convincing evidence.
Petition to continue to use the firm
name Sycip and Ozaeta CAN GIVE RISE
TO DECEPTION CONTRARY TO LAW,
PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC POLICY,
Petitions were filed by the surviving
partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, who
died on May 5, 1975 and by the
surviving partners of Atty. Herminio
Ozaeta, who died on February 14,
1976, praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the names of their
firms, the names of partners who had
passed away. The Court denied the
petition stating that no practice should
be allowed which even in a remote
degree could give rise to the possibility
of deception. The public relations value
of the use of an old firm name can
tend to create undue advantages and
disadvantages in the practice of the
profession. More so, a partnership for
the practice of law is not a legal entity.
It is a mere relationship or association
for a particular purpose. It is not a
partnership formed for the purpose of
carrying on trade or business or of
holding property. Thus the assumed or
trade name in law practice is improper.
It must be conceded that in PH, no
local custom permits or allows the
continued use of a deceased or former
partners in the firms names of law
partnerships.

Art 13
CIR v Primetown TAX REFUND CREDIT
LEAP YEAR 731 DAYS, ART DOES NOT
DISTINGUISH LEAP REGULAR, SEC 31

ADMIN CODE OF 1987 MORE RECENT

LAW
Gilbert
Yap
vice
chairman
of
respondent Primetown Property Group
Inc. applied for the refund or credit of
income tax respondent in paid in 1997
because it suffered losses therefore it
was not liable for income taxes.
Respondent submitted requirements
but its claim was not acted upon. Thus
on April 14, 2000 it filed a petition for
review in CTA.
CTA dismissed the
petition because it has filed beyond
the 2 year prescriptive period under
the claim for tax refund or credit under
Sec 229 of NIRC. The CTA found that
respondent filed its final adjusted
return on April 14, 1998. thus its right
to claim a refund or credit commenced

on that date. Applying Art. 13 of the

Civil Code ruled that the 2 year period
under NIRC is 730 days but since 2000
is a leap year it is 731 days therefore it
was beyond the prescriptive period. CA
reversed the CTA decision ruling that
Article 13 does not distinguish
between a regular year and a leap
year. EO 292 or Admin Code of 1987
provides
that
years
shall
be
understood to be twelve calendar
months. Therefore being the more
recent law, Admin Code of 1987 and
having impliedly repealed in its
repealing
close
that
all
laws
inconsistent therewith, governs the
computation of legal periods.