Manila Motor Company Essay

In May 1954. Manila Motor Company filed in the Municipal Court of Manila a ailment to retrieve from Manuel T. Flores the sum of P1. 047. 98 as movable mortgage installments which fell due in September 1941. Defendant pleaded prescription: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1941 to 1954. The ailment was dismissed. On entreaty. the Court of First Instance saw otherwise. prolonging Plaintiff’s contention that the moratorium Torahs had interrupted the running of the normative period. and that subtracting the clip during which said Torahs were in operation — three old ages and eight months 1 — the ten-year term had non yet elapsed when complainant sued for aggregation in May 1954. Wherefore said tribunal ordered the return of the instance to the municipal justice for test on the virtues. Defendant appealed.

Whether or non the moratorium Torahs did non hold the consequence of suspending the period of restrictions. because they were unconstitutional. as declared by this tribunal in Rutter vs. Esteban. 49 Off.

In Montilla vs. Pacific Commercial SC held that the moratorium Torahs suspended the period of prescription. That was rendered after the Rutter-Esteban determination. It should be stated nevertheless. in equity to Appellant. that the Montilla determination came down after he had submitted his brief. And in reply to his chief contention. the undermentioned part is quoted from a declaration of this Court. Rutter vs. Esteban ( 93 Phil. . 68 ) may be construed to intend that at the clip of the determination the Moratorium jurisprudence could no longer be validly applied because of the prevailing fortunes. At any rate. although the general regulation is that an unconstitutional legislative act —‘confers no right. creates no office. affords no protection and justifies no Acts of the Apostless performed under it. ’ ( 11 Am. Jur. . pp. 828. 829. ) There are several cases wherein tribunals. out of equity. hold relaxed its operation ( californium. notes in Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations 8th erectile dysfunction. . p. 383 and Notes 53 A. L. R. . 273 ) or qualified its effects ‘since the existent being of a legislative act prior to such declaration is an operative fact. and may hold effects which can non rightly be ignored’ ( Chicot County vs. Baster. 308 U. S. . 371 ) and a realistic attack is gnawing the general philosophy ( Waring vs. Colpoys. 136 Am. Law Rep. . 1025. 1030 ) . ” Judgment affirmed. without costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *