GR L 9156; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9156; April 29, 1957
WISE & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Wise & Company, Inc., filed a complaint alleging that from December 28, 1948, to January 20, 1949, it paid the defendant City Treasurer of Manila the total sum of P2,200.04 as meat inspection fees under Ordinance No. 2991 of the City of Manila. The Secretary of Justice later rendered an opinion on January 11, 1951, declaring Ordinance No. 2991 null and void. Subsequently, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3538 on October 31, 1952, appropriating funds and authorizing the refund of all meat inspection fees illegally collected under the void ordinance. The plaintiff filed a claim for refund with the City Treasurer on February 19, 1951, but despite repeated demands, the refund was refused. The plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking recovery of the P2,200.04, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it stated no cause of action and that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it states no cause of action and that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal. On the first ground, the Court held that the complaint did state a cause of action. Applying the test of whether a valid judgment could be rendered upon the facts alleged, the Court found that if the alleged facts—payment under a void ordinance, subsequent appropriation and authorization for refund by a valid ordinance, and refusal to refund—were proven true, a valid judgment for the plaintiff could be rendered. On the second ground, the Court held that the action was not barred by prescription. The cause of action accrued on October 31, 1952, the date Ordinance No. 3538 (authorizing the refund) was approved. The complaint was filed on January 7, 1955, a period of only two years, two months, and eight days. This period is within both the six-year prescriptive period under Article 1145 of the New Civil Code and the four-year period under Article 1146(1) of the same Code or Section 43(3) of Act No. 190 . The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.