Doctrine: The actual existence of a statute prior to its declaration as unconstitutional, is

an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.
Topic: Effects of Unconstitutionality
Sub-topic: Orthodox View v. Operative Fact
Alicando, SG.

Manila Motor Company Inc. v. Flores

G.R. No. L-9396. August 16, 1956

Facts:
1. Manila Motor Company wishes to recover a sum of money as chattel mortgages from
Flores as it was already due.
2. Flores pleaded prescription (1941 to 1954)
3. Lower court ruled in favor of Flores but CFI ruled in favor of MMC since the Moratorium
Law interrupted the prescription period, thus the ten year term has not yet elapsed.
4. Flores said that the law did not interrupt since it was unconstitutional, meaning it is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed, and no rights can be built upon it.

Issues:
Whether or not the Moratorium Law interrupted the prescription period.

Ruling:
Yes, the Moratorium Law interrupted the prescription period.

Under the doctrine of operative fact, acts done pursuant to law, which was subsequently
declared unconstitutional, remains valid because we cannot simply ignore the consequences
created by the law when it was still in force and effect.

In this case, the years1 in which the law was in operation are considered to be an interruption to
the prescription period.

1
Three years and eight months.