Short answer. No. Accepting the finished building does not waive your right to sue if it later collapses from a defect. Article 1723 states plainly that acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action for the defects it describes.
What the law says
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
Acceptance is not a waiver
A building owner who takes possession of a finished structure may fear he has signed away his rights by accepting it. Article 1723 removes that fear. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action for the defects the article covers. Accepting the work simply acknowledges that construction is done; it is not a declaration that the building is sound or that you forgive hidden flaws. Because dangerous defects in plans, ground, materials, or construction are often invisible at hand-over, the law refuses to read acceptance as surrender of the right to sue when the structure fails.
Who is liable and for how long
Article 1723 fixes responsibility on the professionals behind the building. The engineer or architect who drew the plans and specifications is liable for damages if, within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, it collapses because of a defect in those plans or in the ground. The contractor is likewise liable within the same period if the building falls due to defects in construction, inferior materials he supplied, or any violation of the contract's terms. If the engineer or architect also supervised construction, he is solidarily liable with the contractor — meaning either can be pursued for the full damage.
The deadline to sue after a collapse
The fifteen-year window is the period within which the collapse must occur for liability to attach. Separately, the article sets a deadline for bringing the case: the action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. So the two periods work together — the failure must happen within fifteen years of completion, and once it happens, the owner has ten years from the collapse to sue. Missing the ten-year window after a collapse can bar an otherwise valid claim, so timing must be watched closely once damage appears.
What the protection does not reach
The article is aimed at collapse caused by the specific defects it lists — faulty plans or specifications, defective ground, poor construction, inferior materials, or breach of the contract terms. It is not a blanket warranty against every problem a building may ever develop, nor does it cover damage from causes outside those defects. And while acceptance preserves the cause of action, the owner still has to prove that a covered defect caused the collapse. Keeping the plans, contracts, and records of who did what makes that proof far easier if the structure later fails.
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.
- Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board vs. Manila Water Company, Inc, G.R. No. 217590, March 10, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation vs. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 126619, December 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- William Golangco Construction Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 142830, March 24, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →