Short answer. Under Article 1723, you must bring the action within ten years following the collapse of the building. That ten-year window to sue is separate from the fifteen-year period, running from completion, within which the collapse itself must occur for the engineer, architect or contractor to be liable at all.
What the law says
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
Ten years from the collapse to sue
The deadline to file is stated plainly at the end of Article 1723: The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. The clock for filing runs from the date the structure actually falls, not from when it was built. So the event that starts your ten years is the collapse itself. Miss that window and the claim can be barred by the lapse of time, no matter how clear the defect. This is why acting promptly after a collapse — gathering records, plans and evidence of the defect — matters so much to preserving the right.
Two separate time limits, not one
Article 1723 sets up two distinct periods that are easy to confuse. The first is a fifteen-year window measured from the completion of the structure: the engineer or architect is liable if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the building collapses through a defect in the plans, specifications or ground, and the contractor is liable within the same period for defects in construction or inferior materials. The second is the ten-year period to sue, counted from the collapse. The collapse must happen inside the fifteen years; once it does, you then have ten years from that collapse to file.
Who can be held liable
The article spreads responsibility according to fault. The engineer or architect who drew the plans answers for defects in those plans and specifications or in the ground; the contractor answers for defects in the construction, inferior materials he furnished, or breaches of the contract. Where the engineer or architect also supervises the construction, he is made solidarily liable with the contractor, meaning either can be pursued for the whole. Knowing who is answerable helps you name the right defendants before your ten years run out, since a claim filed against the wrong party may not save your right against the truly responsible one.
Accepting the building does not waive your claim
A common worry is that taking delivery of the finished building signs away later complaints. The article rejects that: 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 provision. Hidden defects in plans, ground or construction may only reveal themselves when the structure fails, so acceptance cannot be treated as forgiveness of dangers no one could see. Your right survives acceptance and depends instead on the two time limits above. The law's concern is structural safety, and it refuses to let a routine turnover extinguish it.
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 →