Short answer. No. Under the Civil Code, judicial summons is deemed not to have been issued — and does not interrupt prescription — if the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings to lapse. An abandoned case has no effect on your prescription period; the time runs as if the case was never filed.
What the law says
Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption: (1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities; (2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings to lapse; (3) If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint. 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 →
How prescription is normally interrupted by a lawsuit
Filing a case and serving summons on the defendant normally interrupts the running of a prescription period — the clock stops while the case is pending. This protects claimants who have begun the judicial process. But Article 1124 limits that protection: the interruption is conditional on the case actually proceeding. If the filing is defective, abandoned, or ends in the defendant's favor, the interruption is treated as if it never happened.
Three situations where summons is treated as not issued
Article 1124 lists three situations where judicial summons produces no interruption. First, if the summons itself was void for lack of legal formalities — a procedurally defective summons. Second, if the plaintiff desists from the complaint or allows the proceedings to lapse — meaning the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned the case or let it be dismissed for inaction. Third, if the possessor — the defendant — is absolved from the complaint, meaning the case was decided against the plaintiff. In all three situations, the period that elapsed during the case is added back to the prescriptive period, not subtracted from it.
The prescriptive period runs through the abandoned case
The last sentence of Article 1124 is critical: "In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the prescription." This means that the time the case was pending — from filing to abandonment or lapse — is not frozen. It counts against the possessor's prescriptive period. So if the plaintiff filed when you had three years left on your prescription period and the case ran for two years before being abandoned, you now have only one year left, not three. The abandoned case consumed time without interrupting anything.
Why this matters in property possession disputes
This rule is particularly important in prescription-based claims to property. A person claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription — long, open, continuous possession in the concept of owner — cannot have that period artificially extended by a plaintiff filing and then abandoning a case. Similarly, a person defending against a prescriptive claim cannot use a voluntarily filed but abandoned case to argue that the prescription clock was stopped. Both sides need to understand that an abandoned case leaves them exactly where they would have been if no case had been filed — except that the time spent in court has now been counted.
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 →