You are on page 1of 1

Yek Tong vs. American President Lines, Inc.

| Labrador (1958)
FACTS
 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
ISSUES/HELD
WoN Yek Tong’s CoA has prescribed? – YES.
RATIONALE
 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
Act.
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