CIR vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc G.R. No. 162155, August 28, 200 !

"cts# Gilbert Yap, vice chair of respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc., applied for the refund or credit of income tax respondent paid in 1997. e claimed that because explained because respondent suffered losses, it was not liable for income taxes. !evertheless, respondent paid its "uarterly corporate income tax and remitted creditable withholdin# tax from real estate sales to the $I% in the total amount of P&',(1),(9).(&. *herefore, respondent was entitled to tax refund or tax credit. %evenue officer re"uired respondent to submit additional documents to support its claim. %espondent complied but its claim was not acted upon. It filed a petition for review in the +*,. owever, the +*, the petition as it was filed beyond the two-year prescriptive period for filin# a .udicial claim for tax refund or tax credit as provided in /ec. &&9 of the !I%+. In addition, the tax court applied ,rticle 1( of the +ivil +ode which states0 ,rt. 1(. 1hen the law spea2s of years, months, days or ni#hts, it shall be understood that ye"rs "re o$ t%ree %un&re& si'ty($ive &"ys e"c%3. *hus, accordin# to the +*,, the two-year prescriptive period under /ection &&9 of the !I%+ for the filin# of .udicial claims was e"uivalent to 7(4 days. $ecause the year &444 was a leap year, respondent5s petition, which was filed 7(1 days after respondent filed its final ad.usted return, was filed beyond the re#lementary period. %espondent moved for reconsideration but it was denied. ence, it filed an appeal in the +, and the +, reversed the decision of the +*,. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied. *hus, this appeal. Issue# 1hether or not ,rt. 1( of the +ivil +ode should be applicable in computin# the le#al periods or /ec. (1 of the ,dministrative +ode of 19)7 Ru)ing# 6.7. &9& should be applied in computin# the le#al period bein# the more recent law, #overns the computation of le#al periods. Lex posteriori derogat priori. $oth ,rticle 1( of the +ivil +ode and /ection (1, +hapter 8III, $oo2 I of the ,dministrative +ode of 19)7 deal with the same sub.ect matter 9 the computation of le#al periods. :nder the +ivil +ode, a year is e"uivalent to ('; days whether it be a re#ular year or a leap year. :nder the ,dministrative +ode of 19)7, however, a year is composed of 1& calendar months. !eedless to state, under the ,dministrative +ode of 19)7, the number of days is irrelevant. 1e therefore hold that respondent5s petition <filed on ,pril 1=, &444> was filed on the last day of the &=th calendar month from the day respondent filed its final ad.usted return. ence, it was filed within the re#lementary period.