Short answer. Yes, provided it is in writing. Prescription is interrupted by a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, by filing the action in court, and by a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. A phone call, a verbal reminder or a demand nobody can produce later does none of this.
What the law says
The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
Civil Code, Article 1155 — The Three Ways to Interrupt Prescription. Read the full provision →
Three ways, and only three
The provision is exhaustive on its face: the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. Two of the three are acts of the creditor and one belongs to the debtor. What unites them is that each leaves something behind. The law is not rewarding effort or persistence; it is recognising events that can be proved afterwards, which is why the informal chasing most creditors actually do counts for nothing here.
Writing is the whole point
The article says written twice, and both times deliberately. A demand made by telephone, in person or through a relative does not interrupt prescription however emphatic it was, and neither does a partial payment accepted without a line of writing to record what it was for. The lesson is unglamorous: send the demand in a form that survives, keep the copy, and keep whatever shows it reached the debtor. A demand letter that exists only in the sender's memory is, for this purpose, the same as no demand at all.
What an interruption actually does to the count
Here is where confidence outruns the text. The Code says the running is interrupted; it does not say, in this article, what becomes of the time that had already elapsed. Creditors routinely assume a demand buys them a fresh full period and then act as though years were restored to them. That assumption may be wrong in your situation and is not something the provision itself settles. If the arithmetic is anywhere near the limit, treat the demand as a reason to move rather than a reason to relax, and get advice on the count before relying on it.
Know which period you are interrupting
Interruption only matters against a specific deadline, so establish that first. Article 1144 gives ten years upon a written contract, upon an obligation created by law and upon a judgment. Article 1145 gives six upon an oral contract or a quasi-contract. Article 1149 catches actions whose periods are not fixed anywhere else and allows five years from the accrual of the right of action. A debtor's written admission is worth most when you can say precisely which clock it stopped and how much of that clock was left.
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.
- Spouses Flavio P. Bautista vs. Premiere Development Bank, G.R. No. 201881, July 15, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Diamond Seafoods Corp., et al, G.R. No. 142420, January 29, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries , Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc, G.R. No. 177524, July 23, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →