Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Nadeco Vs Tobias

    Uploaded by

    Jai
    The National Development Company filed a complaint against Jose Yulo Tobias to recover over P6,000 owed under a promissory note from May 1946. Tobias argued the case was past the 10-year statute of limitations. The National Development Company claimed they were an instrumentality of the government and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations. However, the court found that while the National Development Company was an instrumentality of the government, it did not exercise sovereign powers and could not invoke exemptions from the statute of limitations. The court ruled in favor of Tobias and dismissed the case as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nadeco Vs Tobias

    Uploaded by

    Jai
    182 views1 page
    The National Development Company filed a complaint against Jose Yulo Tobias to recover over P6,000 owed under a promissory note from May 1946. Tobias argued the case was past the 10-year statute of limitations. The National Development Company claimed they were an instrumentality of the government and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations. However, the court found that while the National Development Company was an instrumentality of the government, it did not exercise sovereign powers and could not invoke exemptions from the statute of limitations. The court ruled in favor of Tobias and dismissed the case as time-barred.

    Original Description:

    abc

    Original Title

    Nadeco vs Tobias

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The National Development Company filed a complaint against Jose Yulo Tobias to recover over P6,000 owed under a promissory note from May 1946. Tobias argued the case was past the 10-year statute of limitations. The National Development Company claimed they were an instrumentality of the government and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations. However, the court found that while the National Development Company was an instrumentality of the government, it did not exercise sovereign powers and could not invoke exemptions from the statute of limitations. The court ruled in favor of Tobias and dismissed the case as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views1 page

    Nadeco Vs Tobias

    Uploaded by

    Jai
    The National Development Company filed a complaint against Jose Yulo Tobias to recover over P6,000 owed under a promissory note from May 1946. Tobias argued the case was past the 10-year statute of limitations. The National Development Company claimed they were an instrumentality of the government and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations. However, the court found that while the National Development Company was an instrumentality of the government, it did not exercise sovereign powers and could not invoke exemptions from the statute of limitations. The court ruled in favor of Tobias and dismissed the case as time-barred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-17467 April 23, 1963

    NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, represented by


    its Agents,
    THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    JOSE YULO TOBIAS, defendant-appellee.

    complaint, filed on March 22, 1960, plaintiff seeks to recover from


    Jose YULO TOBIAS, the sum of P6,905.81, plus interest and
    attorney's fees, under a promissory note of said defendant, dated
    and issued on May 13, 1946, for the sum of P7,000.00, payable
    "on demand after date" to the order of said plaintiff.
    the defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that "the
    action upon which the complaint is based has prescribed long
    ago," more than ten (10) years having elapsed since May 13, 1946,
    when said promissory note was issued and plaintiff's action
    accrued.
    Plaintiff cited that they are an instrumentality of the Government

    Issue: WON the NDC truly am instrumentality of the government.


    Held: No, Plaintiffs pretense is clearly devoid of merit. Plaintiff
    herein is neither the Government of the Republic nor a branch or
    subdivision thereof. It is true that plaintiff is an instrumentality of
    such Government
    plaintiff herein does not exercise sovereign powers — and, hence,
    can not invoke the exemptions thereof

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy