Jurisprudence for Prescriptive Periods in Civil Cases

G.R. No. 106646 June 30, 1993

JAIME LEDESMA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

Article 1155 of the Civil Code provides that the prescription of an action, the 10-year prescriptive period
for filing an action on a written contract under Article 1144(1) of the Code, is interrupted by (a) the filing
of an action, (b) a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, and (c) a written acknowledgment of
the debt by the debtor. The effects of the last two instances have already been decided by this Court,
the rationale wherein should necessarily apply to the first.

The matter of the interruption of the prescriptive period by reason of a written extrajudicial demand by
the creditor was decided in Overseas Bank of Manila vs. Geraldez, et al.5 in this wise:

. . . The interruption of the prescriptive period by written extrajudicial demand means

that the said period would commence anew from the receipt of the demand. That is
the correct meaning of interruption as distinguished from mere suspension or tolling of
the prescriptive period.

xxx xxx xxx

A written extrajudicial demand wipes out the period that has already elapsed and starts
anew the prescriptive period. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

That same view as to the meaning of interruption was adopted in Florendo vs. Organo,
90 Phil 483, 488, where it was ruled that the interruption of the ten-year prescriptive
period through a judicial demand means that "the full period of prescription
commenced to run anew upon the cessation of the suspension." When prescription is
interrupted by a judicial demand, the full time for the prescription must be reckoned
from the cessation of the interruption. . . .

The interruption of the prescriptive period by reason of a written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor was dealt with in Philippine National Railways vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et
al.,6 thus:

Article 1155 of the Civil Code provides that the "prescription of actions is
interrupted" inter alia, "when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor." This simply means that the period of prescription, when interrupted by such a
written acknowledgment, begins to run anew; and whatever time of limitation might
have already elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action is thereby negated and
rendered inefficacious. . . .
 xxx xxx xxx

. . . The effect of the interruption spoken of in Article 1155 is to renew the obligation,
to make prescription run again from the date of the interruption . . .

xxx xxx xxx

In Vda. de Nator, it was held that:

. . . The filing of the case with the CFI arrested the period of prescription (Art. 1155
NCC), and the interruption of said period lasted until the time that the dismissal for lack
of jurisdiction became final. "When prescription is interrupted by a judicial demand, the
full time for the prescription must be reckoned from the cessation of the interruption".
. . . The whole period during which the case had been pending cannot be counted for
arriving at the prescriptive period. In other words, the running of the period of
prescription in this particular case was interrupted on August 6, 1953, when the case
in the CFI was filed and began to run again on August 30, 1958, when the same Court
had dismissed the case. As the complaint was filed with the CIR on December 5, 1958,
the action has not yet prescribed.

G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
TERESITA OSETE, JOSE CRESPO and ESTELITA CUYA, defendants-appellees.

xxx xxx xxx

Article 1155 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to read:

The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a
written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment
of the debt by the debtor.

Under this provision, not all acts of acknowledgment of a debt interrupt prescription. To produce such
effect, the acknowledgment must be "written", so that payment, if not coupled with a communication
signed by the payor, would not interrupt the running of the period of prescription.

Moreover, the lower court expressed the view that said "Art. 1155 of the New Civil Code refers to the
tolling of the period of prescription of the action to collect, not to the action to enforce" or revive — a
"judgment". Understandably, either an "extrajudicial demand" by the creditor or an "acknowledgment
of the debt" may interrupt the prescription of the action to collect, not based upon a judgment, since
the demand indicates that the creditor has not slept on his rights — and removes the basis of the
statute of limitations of actions — but, was vigilant, in the enforcement thereof, whereas an
acknowledgment by the debtor provides a tangible evidence of the existence and validity of the debt.
G.R. No. L-46541 December 28, 1979

THE OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of
Manila, TEODOSIO VALENTON and ANDRES A. JUAN, respondents-appellees.

xxx xxx xxx

As to the interruption of the ten-year period by the written extrajudicial demands, the trial court held
that a demand letter tolls the prescriptive period only for the period of time indicated in the letter within
which payment should be made and prescription commences to run again after the expiration of that
period and no payment is made.

We hold that the lower court erred in holding that each of the demand letters suspended the
prescriptive period for one day only. The interruption of the prescriptive period by written extrajudicial
demand means that the said period would commence anew from the receipt of the demand. That is
the correct meaning of interruption as distinguished from mere suspension or tolling of the prescriptive
period.

An action upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the tune the right of action
accrues (Art. 1144[1], Civil Code). "The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before
the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written
acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor" (Art. 11 55, lbid, applied in Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs.
City of Manila, 117 Phil. 985, 993; Philippine National Bank vs. Fernandez, L20086, July 10, 1967, 20
SCRA 645, 648; Harden vs, Harden, L-22174, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 706, 711).

Interruption of the prescription of actions by means of a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor is
a rule of civil law origin. Article 1155 specifies that the extrajudicial demand and the acknowledgment
should be in writing.

A written extrajudicial demand wipes out the period that has already elapsed and starts anew the
prescriptive period.