Opinions of the Court 125 C. Cls. he filed a claim with the Army Claims Service in 1948 and has not received a reply therefrom. Plaintiff's petition was filed in this court on February 19, 1953 and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations because the petition was not filed within six years of September 2, 1945. Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641. In view of the Marcos decision and our decision rendered this day in the case of Alfredo C. Sese v. United States, ante, p. 526, plaintiff's petition is not timely and is therefore dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; WHITAKER, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur. BARTOLOME C. ANGELES v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 45-53] Mr. Bartolome C. Angeles pro se. Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren E. Burger, for the defendant. On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss HOWELL, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the Philippines, sues to recover supplies alleged to have been commandeered by a recognized guerrilla band on November 21, 1944, while the Philippine Islands were occupied by the Japanese. Plaintiff's petition was filed in this court on February 9, 1953, and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations because the petition was not filed within six years of September 2, 1945. Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641. Plaintiff alleges that it filed its claim with PHILRYCOM who forwarded the claim to the Court of Claims. In its brief, plaintiff asserts that its claim was filed with PHILRYCOM on September 5, 1949, and "when it was referred to the Court of Claims, it is deemed filed on Sept. 5, 1949." 541 Opinions of the Court The records of this court reveal that no petition asserting a claim by plaintiff against the United States was filed in this court prior to February 9, 1953. The filing of plaintiff's claim with PHILRYCOM is not a filing of a petition in this court. Plaintiff also contends that its cause of action did not accrue until September 5, 1949, when the claim was filed with PHILRYCOM. As we held in Alfredo C. Sese v. United States, ante, p. 526, this day decided, the cause of action in plaintiff's favor accrued at the time of the requisition. Accordingly, plaintiff's petition filed February 9, 1953, is barred by the statute of limitations and is therefore dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; WHITAKER, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur. RAMCAR, INCORPORATED v. THE UNITED [No. 628-52] Mr. Edward Gallagher for the plaintiff. Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for the defendant. On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss HOWELL, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiff, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Republic and having its principal offices in Manila, brings this suit to recover the value of its airfield property and aircraft equipment commandeered by the United States Army on December 8, 1941, and destroyed by the Army on December 29, 1941 to prevent the property from falling into the hands of the Japanese. In a second cause of action plaintiff claims compensation for taxicabs and other automotive equipment and supplies commandeered by the United States Army between December 8, and December 28, 1941. Plaintiff alleges that claims filed with the Army Claims Service covering both causes of action were denied by that service in April 1948 and July 1949. 260536-53-37 Opinions of the Court 125 C. Cls. The petition herein was filed on December 30, 1952 and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, not having been filed within six years of September 2, 1945. Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641. Plaintiff urges that the wartime suspension of the statute of limitations was not lifted on September 2, 1945 as was determined by this court in the Marcos case supra, but continued until the date of the President's Proclamation declaring a "Cessation of Hostilities of World War II" on December 31, 1946. We have considered fully all the arguments advanced by plaintiff in a decision issued this day in the case of Alfredo C. Sese v. United States, ante, p. 526. In the light of that decision we conclude that the causes of action in the instant case accrued at the time of the requisitions in 1941, that the statute of limitations was suspended until September 2, 1945, and that plaintiff's claims, having been filed more than six years following September 2, 1945, are barred. Accordingly, plaintiff's petition is dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; WHITAKER, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur. MANUEL MARTIN, ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 630-52] Mr. Ernest Schein for the plaintiffs. Mr. Henry M. Kannee was on the brief. Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for the defendant. On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss HOWELL, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of the Philippines, sue to recover the value of supplies and money requisitioned by recognized guerrilla units and by units of the United States Army in the Philippines, during the period of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. 541 Opinions of the Court Plaintiffs' petitions were filed in this court on December 31, 1952 and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims therein are barred by the statute of limitations because the petitions were not filed within six years of September 2, 1945. Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641. Plaintiffs contend that their causes of action did not accrue until defendant, by command of General MacArthur, assumed the obligation of paying such claims and until the agency (Army Claims Service) designated for the purpose of considering and settling the claims had been established. All of the arguments urged by plaintiffs herein were considered and disposed of adversely to plaintiffs' position in our decision this day issued in the case of Alfredo C. Sese v. United States, ante, p. 526. Accordingly plaintiffs' petitions are dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; WHITAKER, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur. MARIA V. LINDAYAG AND DIONISIO LINDAYAG v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 635-52] Mr. Kahl K. Spriggs for the plaintiffs. Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for the defendant. On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss HOWELL, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of the Philippines, sue to recover funds and supplies, requisitioned by a recognized guerrilla unit during the period of Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Plaintiffs' petition was filed in this court on December 31, 1952, and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim therein asserted is barred by the statute of limitations because the petition was not filed within Opinions of the Court 125 C. Cls. six years of September 2, 1945. Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641. Plaintiffs allege that because the advances made and the supplies requisitioned were upon the understanding that they would be repaid by the United States at the conclusion of the war, no cause of action accrued in plaintiffs' favor until payment became due and was refused by the Army Claims Service, considerably less than six years prior to the filing of the petition in this court. Plaintiffs further urge that in any event, the surrender of the Japanese on September 2, 1945, did not mark the end of hostilities in World War II and therefore did not operate to lift the suspension of the statute of limitations on claims accruing prior to that date during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Both contentions urged by plaintiffs herein were considered and disposed of adversely to plaintiffs' positions in our decision this day issued in the case of Alfredo C. Sese v. United States, ante, p. 526.1 Accordingly, plaintiffs' petition is dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; WHITAKER, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur. ELISEO SILVA v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 631-52] Mr. T. Bruce Fuller for the plaintiff. Mr. Emmett O'Neal was on the brief. Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren E. Burger, for the defendant. 1 In its brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiff has referred us to a case not discussed in the Sese decision, supra. In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160 the issue was whether the President's summary war power, under the Allen Enemy Act, to order the removal of alien enemies from the U. S. wherever there was a declared war, survived the cessation of actual hostilities. A similar problem, involving the survival of war powers, was present in the case of Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries, 251 U. S. 146, relied on by plaintiff in the Sese case and discussed in our decision in that case. |