Short answer. Usually not. Article 1124 provides that judicial summons is deemed not to have been issued, and gives rise to no interruption, where the plaintiff desists or lets the proceedings lapse, where the possessor is absolved, or where the summons was void, and that the period of the interruption is then counted for the prescription.
What the law says
Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption
Civil Code, Article 1124 — When Summons Does Not Interrupt. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the prescription.
Civil Code, Article 1124 — When Summons Does Not Interrupt. Read the full provision →
The sting is in the last sentence
Most people read the article as being about whether a case counted for anything. The consequence is harsher than that. Where one of the three situations applies, the summons is deemed not to have been issued, and the article adds that in all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the prescription. So the years spent litigating are not merely wasted; they go to the occupant's side of the ledger. An owner who sued, lost interest and let the file go cold has handed over the time along with the case.
The three situations are precise
A summons void for lack of legal solemnities never interrupted anything, which is why service is worth doing properly and documenting carefully. A plaintiff who should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings to lapse loses the interruption by his own conduct, and this is the limb that catches owners who file to make a point and then stop appearing. And a possessor absolved from the complaint carries the interruption away with him, because the case brought against him was answered in his favour.
So the question is what the dismissal was for
The order is the document that says. A case ended because the plaintiff stopped prosecuting it sits squarely inside the article. A case ended for other reasons may not, and whether it does turns on the terms of the order rather than on the word dismissed. Take the order, the complaint and the proof of service to a lawyer together, because the answer determines the date from which anyone should now be counting, and that date governs everything else you might do about the land.
If the claim is still worth making
Work from the assumption that none of the earlier period was interrupted, and move quickly. Reconstruct the history of the occupation with dates and documents, establish who the present possessor is and in what character he holds the property, and get a fresh case filed and summons properly served. Where a previous case was allowed to lapse, understand why before repeating the exercise, because the same pattern reliably produces the same result a second time.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Heirs of Beinvenido and Araceli Tanyag, namely Arturo Tanyag, Aida T. Jocson and Zenaid T. Veloso vs. Salome E. Gabriel, et al, G.R. No. 175763, April 11, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo, et al. vs. Agrifina Ranon, et al, G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara, G.R. No. 131074, March 27, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1123 — Civil Interruption
- Civil Code, Article 1125 — Recognition by the Possessor