Short answer. The four-year prescriptive period does not begin running until the incapacity ends for a ward, or until the absentee's domicile becomes known. Article 1389 of the Civil Code suspends the clock for these persons — the period only starts when the legal obstacle to their suing is removed.
What the law says
For persons under guardianship and for absentees, the period of four years shall not begin until the termination of the former's incapacity, or until the domicile of the latter is known.
Civil Code, Article 1389 — Prescriptive Period for Rescission. Read the full provision →
The general rule and the special exceptions
Article 1389 of the Civil Code sets the prescriptive period for actions to rescind a contract: "The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years." But the article immediately adds two exceptions: "For persons under guardianship and for absentees, the period of four years shall not begin until the termination of the former's incapacity, or until the domicile of the latter is known." For everyone else the four years run from the time the rescissible act occurred. For wards and absentees, the clock is frozen until their personal disability is removed — protecting them from losing rights they were never in a position to exercise.
When the period begins for a ward
A ward is under guardianship precisely because they cannot manage their own legal affairs — whether from minority, mental incapacity, or other disability. The law does not start the clock while the ward remains in that state, because expecting them to file a lawsuit during incapacity is unrealistic. The four years begin only when the incapacity terminates: the minor reaches the age of majority, or the court lifts the guardianship because the former ward has recovered capacity. From that point on, the ward (now acting on their own) has four years to pursue rescission.
When the period begins for an absentee
An absentee is a person whose whereabouts are unknown. The Civil Code treats their situation differently from a ward: the limitation here is factual, not legal. Until the absentee's domicile becomes known, no one can effectively serve them or expect them to exercise legal rights. The four-year period therefore does not begin until someone — the absentee's representative, a family member, or another party — establishes where the absentee is. Once the domicile is known, the four-year window opens. The practical effect is that a contract entered into on behalf of an absentee in a way that harmed them cannot be insulated from rescission simply because the absentee could not be located.
Why this matters in practice
If you are a guardian or a representative of an absentee and you are looking at a contract that harmed the person in your care, do not assume the four-year period has already lapsed just because the contract is old. The relevant question is when the ward's incapacity ended, or when the absentee's location was established — not when the contract was signed. Conversely, if you are on the other side of a potentially rescissible contract and the aggrieved party is a ward or absentee, the long silence does not mean the right to rescind is gone. Get proper legal advice on the specific dates before assuming any prescription defense is available.
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.
- Anchor Savings Bank (formerly Anchor Finance and Investment Corporation) vs. Henry H. Furigay, et al, G.R. No. 191178, March 13, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173441, December 3, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Khe Hong Cheng, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 144169, March 28, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Vicelet Lelicon and Vicelen Lalicon vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 185440, July 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →