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 APLs 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 Tongs CoA has prescribed? YES.
RATIONALE
First: Yek Tong failed to deny APLs 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