Case Name: JUAN D. QUINTOS, JAIME HERNANDEZ, DELEIN BUENCAMINO, SOLEDAD GOMEZ, NIEVES G. ARGONZA, FELICIDAD G. SARAYBA, CARMEN Vda de GOMEZ, PERFECTA B. QUINTOS AND BIENVENIDA SAN AGUSTIN, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1953-01-13
Citations: 124 Ct. Cl. 104
Docket Number: No. 50220
Parties: JUAN D. QUINTOS, JAIME HERNANDEZ, DELEIN BUENCAMINO, SOLEDAD GOMEZ, NIEVES G. ARGONZA, FELICIDAD G. SARAYBA, CARMEN Vda de GOMEZ, PERFECTA B. QUINTOS AND BIENVENIDA SAN AGUSTIN, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Madden, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
JUAN D. QUINTOS, JAIME HERNANDEZ, DELEIN BUENCAMINO, SOLEDAD GOMEZ, NIEVES G. ARGONZA, FELICIDAD G. SARAYBA, CARMEN Vda de GOMEZ, PERFECTA B. QUINTOS AND BIENVENIDA SAN AGUSTIN, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 50220.
Decided January 13, 1953]
Mr. Matthew E. McCarthy for the plaintiff.
Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Howell, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs are citizens of the Republic of the Philippines and were citizens of the Commonwealth of the Philippines prior to the establishment of the Republic on July 4, 1946.
In their petition filed in this court on July 5, 1951, plaintiffs allege that prior to December 30, 1941, they had placed certain jewelry, coins and currency in the Philippine Na tional Bank and that on December 30, 1941, their property was turned over to representatives of the defendant and was stored in vaults on Corregidor; that with the surrender of Corregidor, possession of the property passed over to the Japanese and while in their possession American prisoners of war stole the property.
Plaintiffs further allege that their efforts to have their claim administratively settled have been unsuccessful.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, 62 Stat. 976,28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 2501.
Under our decision in Marcos v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 641, plaintiffs had until September 2, 1951 to file their petition. It was filed on July 5, 1951, and hence is not barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
It is so ordered.
Madden, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.