Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9396 August 16, 1956
MANILA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANUEL T. FLORES, defendant-appellant.
Delgado, Flores and Macapagal for appellant.
Zafra, Lara, De Leon and Veneracion for appellee.
BENGZON, J.:
In May 1954, Manila Motor Company filed in the Municipal Court of Manila a complaint to recover from Manuel T. Flores the amount of P1,047.98 as chattel mortgage installments which fell due in September 1941. Defendant pleaded prescription: 1941 to 1954. The complaint was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of First Instance saw differently, sustaining plaintiff's contention that the moratorium laws had interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, and that deducting the time during which said laws were in operation — three years and eight months1 — the ten year term had not yet elapsed when complainant sued for collection in May 1954. Wherefore said court ordered the return of the case to the municipal judge for trial on the merits.
Defendant appealed, arguing principally that the moratorium laws did not have the effect of suspending the period of limitations, because they were unconstitutional, as declared by this court in Rutter vs. Esteban, 49 Off. Gaz. (5) 1807. He cites jurisprudence holding that when a statute is adjudged unconstitutional it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed, and no rights can be built upon it.2
Some members expressed doubts as to whether the order of the lower court was appealable in nature; but we agreed not to discuss the point, inasmuch as the question submitted by appellant could speedily be disposed of. In Montilla vs. Pacific Commercial3 we held that the moratorium laws suspended the period of prescription. That was rendered after the Rutter-Esteban decision. It should be stated however, in fairness to appellant, that the Montilla decision came down after he had submitted his brief. And in answer to his main contention, the following portion is quoted from a resolution of this Court4
2. Rutter vs. Esteban (93 Phil., 68) may be construed to mean that at the of the decision the Moratorium law could no longer be validly applied because of the prevailing circumstances. At any rate, although the general rule is that an unconstitutional statute —
"confers no right, create no office, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it." (11 Am. Jur., pp. 828, 829.)
there are several instances wherein courts, out of equity, have relaxed its operation (cf. notes in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 8th ed., p. 383 and Notes 53 A. L. R., 273) or qualified its effects "since the actual existence of a statute prior to such declaration is an operative fact, and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored (Chicot County vs. Baster, 308 U. S., 371) and a realistic approach is eroding the general doctrine (Warring vs. Colpoys, 136 Am. Law Rep., 1025, 1030).
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 See Alcantara vs. Chico, 49 Off. Gaz. No. 1, p. 150.
2 Norton vs. Shelby, 118 U. S., 425-454; Am. Jur. Vol. 11, p. 827.
3 98 Phil., 133.
4 Araneta vs. Hill, 93 Phil., 1002.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
