Short answer. Under Article 1723, an engineer, architect or contractor can be held liable if the building collapses within fifteen years from the completion of the structure due to a covered defect. The collapse must happen inside that fifteen-year window for liability to attach at all.
What the law says
within fifteen years from the completion of the structure
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
Fifteen years of exposure from completion
Article 1723 measures the professionals' exposure from the day the building is finished. The engineer or architect who drew the plans is liable for damages if, within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, it collapses by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications or due to defects in the ground. The contractor is responsible within the same period if the edifice falls on account of defects in the construction, inferior materials he furnished, or a violation of the contract. So the fifteen years run from completion, and the collapse itself must occur inside that span for the article's liability to arise.
The fifteen-year window is a separate clock from the suit
It is easy to confuse the fifteen years with the deadline to sue, but they are distinct. The fifteen-year period from completion defines when a collapse counts — a building that falls after fifteen years is outside the article. Separately, the provision gives a filing deadline: the action must be brought within ten years following the collapse. So there are two clocks. First the structure must collapse within fifteen years of completion; then the injured party has ten years from that collapse to file. A claim can fail on either clock — a collapse too late, or a suit filed too long after the collapse.
Who bears the liability, and how it is shared
The article assigns responsibility by role. The engineer or architect answers for defects in the plans, specifications or ground; the contractor answers for defective construction, inferior materials he supplied, or contract violations. Where the engineer or architect also supervises the construction, the law makes him solidarily liable with the contractor, so the injured party may recover the whole from either. This matters within the fifteen-year exposure because it widens who can be pursued for a defect-caused collapse. Identifying the true source of the defect helps determine which professional is answerable, but solidary liability means supervision can pull the designer in alongside the builder.
Acceptance does not shorten the exposure
A building owner might assume that once he accepts and occupies the finished structure, the professionals are off the hook. The article rejects that. It provides that Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect described in the provision. Defects in design, ground or construction often stay hidden until failure, so accepting the building cannot be treated as forgiving them. The fifteen-year exposure therefore stands regardless of acceptance. What it does not cover are ordinary defects unrelated to collapse, or failures caused by the owner's own misuse or lack of maintenance.
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 →