substantially discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should be applied."4[4] Respondent Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when defendant filed its appeal before said court.5[5] On this matter, respondent court was correct when it barred defendant-appellant below from raising further the issue of jurisdiction.6[6] Petitioner now raises the issue of whether his action is one based on Article 1144 or on Article 1146 of the Civil Code. According to him, his termination of employment effective November 1, 1982, was based on an employment contract which is under Article 1144, so his action should prescribe in 10 years as provided for in said article. Thus he claims the ruling of the appellate court based on Article 1146 where prescription is only four (4) years, is an error. The appellate court concluded that the action for illegal dismissal originally filed before the Labor Arbiter on June 29, 1983, but which was withdrawn, then filed again in 1987 before the Regional Trial Court, had already prescribed. In our view, neither Article 11447[7] nor Article 11468[8] of the Civil Code is here pertinent. What is applicable is Article 291 of the Labor Code, viz: "Article 291. Money claims. - All money claims arising from employeeemployer relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. x x x" Misact 4[4] Id. at 54. 5[5] Id. at 32. 6[6] Id. at 33. 7[7] Article 1144. The Following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; xxx 8[8] Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; xxx