Short answer. No. Article 1148 confirms that the prescriptive periods listed in Articles 1140 to 1142 and 1144 to 1147 do not displace more specific limitation periods found elsewhere in the Civil Code, in the Code of Commerce, or in special laws. Where a specific commercial statute fixes its own deadline, that deadline controls instead.
What the law says
The limitations of action mentioned in articles 1140 to 1142, and 1144 to 1147 are without prejudice to those specified in other parts of this Code, in the Code of Commerce, and in special laws.
Civil Code, Article 1148 — Special Rules on Title Preserved. Read the full provision →
What Article 1148 covers
Articles 1140 to 1142 and 1144 to 1147 of the Civil Code list specific prescriptive periods for actions such as recovery of movable property, real actions over immovables, and certain other civil claims. Article 1148 clarifies that this list is not the only word on the subject. It expressly preserves whatever other limitation periods exist elsewhere in the Code, in the Code of Commerce, and in special laws.
Why commercial claims often follow a different clock
Commercial transactions are frequently governed by the Code of Commerce or by specialized statutes covering matters such as negotiable instruments, insurance, or corporate transactions. These sources often set their own limitation periods tailored to the type of transaction involved. Article 1148 ensures that a business owner cannot successfully argue that the general Civil Code periods automatically override a more specific commercial deadline. This mirrors the same logic found throughout the prescription rules: a deadline written for a particular kind of transaction is treated as a more considered judgment about that transaction than the Code's general periods.
Checking which deadline actually applies
Before assuming a claim is timely or time-barred, it helps to identify whether the transaction is covered by a special statute with its own prescriptive period. A claim arising from a check, a bill of lading, an insurance policy, or a corporate dispute may be governed by rules outside the general Civil Code list altogether. Only where no such specific rule exists do the periods in Articles 1140 to 1147 apply by default.
Practical stakes of getting the deadline wrong
Letting a claim prescribe forecloses recovery no matter how solid the underlying facts are. Because business dealings can touch several overlapping statutes at once, a claimant may reasonably but wrongly assume the general Civil Code period is the only one that matters. Confirming the correct governing deadline early, ideally before any limitation period is close to running out, protects the ability to sue at all.
A quick way to spot the right rule
When in doubt, the safer assumption is that a transaction-specific law controls rather than the general Civil Code list. Reviewing the contract, policy, or instrument involved for any stated limitation clause, and checking whether the Code of Commerce or another special law covers that type of transaction, usually reveals which deadline actually applies before the general provisions of Article 1148 need to be relied on. If that review turns up nothing more specific, the periods listed in Articles 1140 to 1147 then apply as the default.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1148 — Special Rules on Title Preserved
- Civil Code, Article 1147 — One-Year Actions
- Civil Code, Article 1149 — The Catch-All — 5 Years