You are on page 1of 1

Yek Tong vs. American President Lines, Inc.

| Labrador (1958)
 Yek Tong filed an action against APL
 APL filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. APL alleged that the goods in question arrived in
Manila on June 17, 1952
 CFI granted APL’s MTD
 Yek Tong appealed contending that its extrajudicial demand on August 22, 1952 should have suspended its action.
Yek Tong used as basis the Code of Civil Procedure
WoN Yek Tong’s CoA has prescribed? – YES.
 First: Yek Tong failed to deny APL’s allegation that the goods arrived on July 17, 1952. This failure can be
interpreted as admission
 Second: Courts could take judicial notice of the fact that a vessel leaving Japan on June 18, 1952 can arrive in
Manila by July 17, 1952
 Third: In a case governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the general provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure on prescription should not be applied.
o In Chua Kuy v Everett Steamship, it was held that Art. 1155 1 of the NCC cannot be made to apply because it
would have the effect of extending the one-year period of prescription fixed in the Carriage of Goods by Sea
o The purpose of the Act is to resolve all matters affecting transportation of goods by sea in as
short time as possible.
o And the application of Art. 1155 would result in permitting delays in the settlement of said questions

1 Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by
the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor