Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


G.R. No. J62J55, 28 August 2007, Corona, J. (Iirst Division)

)bere obriov.ty ei.t. a vavite.t ivcovpatibitity iv tbe vavver ot covpvtivg tegat perioa. vvaer tbe
Cirit Coae ava tbe .avivi.tratire Coae ot ]. or tbi. rea.ov. re bota tbat ectiov ]. Cbapter 1.
oo/ ot tbe .avivi.tratire Coae ot ]. beivg tbe vore recevt tar. gorerv. tbe covpvtatiov ot tegat
perioa.. e po.teriori aerogat priori.

Gilbert \ap. ice chair o Primetown Propertv Group. Inc. Primetown,. applied on
March 11. 1999 or the reund or credit o income tax Primetown paid in 199. It contends
that it is entitled to it because it suered losses that vear due to the increase in the cost o
labor and materials. the diicultv in obtaining inancing or projects. and collecting
receiables. Notwithstanding this. Primetown still paid its quarterlv corporate income tax
and remitted creditable withholding tax rom real estate sales to the BIR. 1hus. it claims
entitlement to a reund.

On Mav 13. 1999. reenue oicer Llizabeth \. Santos required Primetown to submit
additional documents to which the latter complied with. loweer. its claim was not acted
upon which prompted it to ile a petition or reiew in the (ourt o 1ax Appeals (1A, on
April 14. 2000.

(1A dismissed the petition as it was iled bevond the two-vear prescriptie period
or iling a judicial claim or tax reund or tax credit in accordance with Section 229 o the
National Internal Reenue (ode NIR(,. According to the (1A. the two-vear prescriptie
period is equialent to 30 davs pursuant to Article 13 o the (iil (ode wherein vears are
o three hundred sixtv-ie davs each`. Since Primetown iled its inal adjusted return on
April 14. 1998 and that the vear 2000 was a leap vear. the petition was iled 31 davs ater
Primetown iled its inal adjusted return. thereore bevond the reglementarv period.

On appeal. the (ourt o Appeals reersed the decision o (1A. It ruled in aor o
Primetown saving that Article 13 o the (iil (ode did not distinguish between a regular vear
and a leap vear and thus it was iled on time.

1he (ommissioner o Internal Reenue and Arturo Parcero appealed beore the
Supreme (ourt stating that tax reunds. being in the nature o an exemption. should be
strictlv construed against claimants. lence. the claim should hae been iled on or beore
April 13. 2000 or within 30 davs. reckoned rom the time it iled its inal adjusted return.


\hether or not the petition was iled within the two-vear period rom the date o


Petition DLNILD.

Article 13 o the (iil (ode proides that when the law speaks o a vear. it is
understood to be equialent to 365 davs. loweer. LO 292 or the Administratie (ode o
198. a subsequent law. was enacted. It proides in Section 31 that a vear shall be
understood to be twele calendar months`. 1he Supreme (ourt deines a calendar month
as a month designated in the calendar without regard to the number o davs it mav

Due to the inconsistencv. the (ourt held that the Administratie (ode o 198
impliedlv repealed Article 13 o the (iil (ode as the proisions are irreconcilable. 1he
(ourt explained that a law mav be repealed expresslv or impliedlv. Although there is a
repealing clause in the law. it cannot be said as express because there is no speciic
designation o the law to be repealed. 1hus. it is simplv an implied repeal which are generallv
not aored. 1he test now is whether the subsequent law encompasses entirelv the subject
matter o the ormer law and thev cannot be logicallv or reasonablv reconciled. But as it was
ound out. both laws encompass the same subject matter. i.e.. the computation o legal
periods which makes an implied repeal possible.

Therefore, applying Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code
of 1987, Primetown's petition which was filed on April 14, 2000, was filed on the last day
of the 24
calendar month from the day Primetown filed its final adjusted return. Hence,
it was filed within the reglementary period.