Domingo v. Osorio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Between January 1, 1895, and July 16, 1896, Cirila Domingo (plaintiff) furnished materials and performed work at the request of Antonio Osorio (defendant) for the repair of several vehicles. The value of these materials and work amounted to P1,041.45, Mexican currency. In July 1897, Osorio paid P100, leaving a balance of P941.45, Mexican currency, which he refused to pay despite demands. Procedural History: Domingo filed a complaint on August 1, 1905, later amended on December 22, 1905, seeking to recover the outstanding balance with legal interest from July 16, 1896. Osorio demurred to the amended complaint on two grounds: (1) that it did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, and (2) that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations under Article 1967 of the Civil Code. The court below sustained the demurrer, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. The Appeal: Domingo appealed the dismissal, assigning as errors the court's sustaining of the demurrer and its dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription. The appellant argued that the action was not for the daily wage of a mechanic or the value of supplies furnished by them, but for costs of repairs arising from a contract for services, thus falling under the fifteen-year prescriptive period of Article 1964 of the Civil Code, not the three-year period of Article 1967.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for the value of materials and work for vehicle repairs falls under the three-year prescriptive period of Article 1967 of the Civil Code or the fifteen-year period of Article 1964. Whether the defense of prescription can be raised by way of demurrer to the complaint.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court below. While acknowledging that the action might be barred by the statute of limitations under Article 1967 of the Civil Code, the Court held that the defense of prescription cannot be raised by demurrer but must be pleaded in the answer. Therefore, the demurrer should not have been sustained on that ground.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the action for the value of materials and work performed by a mechanic for the repair of vehicles falls under Article 1967, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code. This provision prescribes a three-year period for actions concerning the payment of mechanics, servants, and laborers for their services and for supplies or disbursements incurred in relation to the same. The Court interpreted 'mechanic' broadly to include any artisan who earns a livelihood with their hands, and extended this to include the value of materials furnished for such work, citing historical legal precedent. Therefore, the three-year prescriptive period was deemed applicable. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the defense of prescription cannot be raised by way of demurrer to the complaint. According to paragraph 5 of section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a demurrer can only be based on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The facts alleged in the complaint, if true, established a cause of action arising from a contract. Prescription, being a legal extinguishment of an obligation, cannot be inferred from the facts alleged in the complaint alone; it requires the introduction of facts not alleged, which is not permissible in a demurrer. Thus, the objection of prescription must be set up as a defense in the answer to the complaint.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that an action for the recovery of the value of materials and work performed by a mechanic for the repair of vehicles falls under Article 1967 of the Civil Code, which prescribes a three-year period for such actions. The Court further clarified that the defense of prescription cannot be raised through a demurrer to the complaint, as the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, constitute a cause of action; prescription must be pleaded as a defense in the answer.