Short answer. Yes, by the summons rather than by the filing. Article 1123 provides that civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor. So what stops the clock is the possessor being judicially summoned, which is why the date of service matters and the date you filed does not.
What the law says
Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.
Civil Code, Article 1123 — Civil Interruption. Read the full provision →
Two kinds of interruption, behaving differently
Article 1120 divides interruption into the natural and the civil. Natural interruption is about the possession itself stopping, and Article 1121 makes it turn on a cessation of more than a year. Civil interruption is about the owner acting, and this article states it in six words: it is produced by judicial summons to the possessor. So an owner who wants to stop the clock must do something in court. Watching the property, complaining about it, or discussing it with the family does nothing whatever to the period.
The means is specific
It is not the filing of the complaint, not a demand letter, not a barangay proceeding. It is judicial summons to the possessor. That is worth separating from the rule for the prescription of actions, where Article 1155 does treat a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor as an interruption. The two situations are governed differently, and an owner who sent a strong letter about his land and assumed the clock had stopped may find it never did. It is also why identifying and correctly naming the actual possessor matters so much.
An interruption can be undone
Article 1124 provides that judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued, and shall give rise to no interruption, if it is void for lack of legal solemnities, if the plaintiff desists from the complaint or allows the proceedings to lapse, or if the possessor is absolved from the complaint — and that in those cases the period of the interruption is counted for the prescription. So a case filed and then neglected leaves an owner worse off than he believes he is.
What follows in practice
Once you decide to litigate, make sure summons is actually served on the right person, and keep the proof of service, because that document is what dates the interruption. Then prosecute the case. The years that pass while a filed case sits idle are not neutral, since proceedings allowed to lapse count for the possessor rather than against him. Bring the title, the survey and the history of the occupation to a lawyer before filing rather than after the pleading is already on record.
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 →
- Desamparados M. Soliva, et al. vs. The Intestate Estate of Marcelo M. Villalba, et al, G.R. No. 154017, December 8, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1124 — When Summons Does Not Interrupt
- Civil Code, Article 1120 — Two Ways Possession Is Interrupted