COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and ARTURO V.

PARCERO in his official

capacity as Revenue District Officer of Revenue District No. 049 (Makati) v. PRIMETOWN
PROPERTY GROUP, INC.
G.R. No. 162155
August 28, 2007

FACTS:
On March 11, 1999, Gilbert Yap, Vice Chair of respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc.,
applied for the refund or credit of income tax respondent paid in 1997. Yap, in his letter to Arturo
V. Parcero, Revenue District Officer of Revenue District No. 049 (Makati), claimed that they are
entitled for a refund because they suffered losses that year due to the increase of cost of labor
and materials and difficulty in obtaining financing for projects and collecting receivables.
However, despite the losses, they still paid their quarterly income tax and remitted creditable
withholding tax from real estate to BIR. On May 13, 1999, Elizabeth Santos (Revenue Officer)
required the respondent to submit additional documents to which the respondent complied with,
however, it was not acted upon prompting them to file a petition for review in Court of Tax
Appeals on April 14, 2000. CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed beyond the 2-year
prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for tax refund (Sec. 299, National Internal Revenue
Code). CTA provided that the 2-year period is equivalent to 730 days pursuant to Article 13 of
the New Civil Code. Since respondents filed its final adjustment return on April 14, 1998 and
year 2000 was a leap year (731 days), hence, beyond the reglementary period. It was appealed
to Court of Appeals which reversed CTA’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition was filed within the two-year prescriptive period.

HELD:
Yes. Article 13, NCC provides that when the law speaks of a year, it is understood to be
equivalent to 365 days. On the other hand, Sec. 31, Chapter VIII, Book I, EO 292
(Administrative Code of 1987) provides that year shall be understood to be twelve calendar
months (month designated in the calendar regardless of the number of days it may contain). EO
292 impliedly repealed Art.13, NCC, however, implied repeals are not favored. The test is
whether (1) the subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former and (2)
they cannot be logically or reasonably reconciled which is present in the case at bar. For that
reason, Sec. 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, being the more recent
law, governs the computation of legal periods. Hence, it was filed within the reglementary
period.