Short answer. No. Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides that the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. A void or inexistent contract can be challenged at any time; no deadline bars a suit to have it declared null.
What the law says
The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
Civil Code, Article 1410 — Imprescriptibility of Void Contracts. Read the full provision →
Void contracts never prescribe
Article 1410 is a single sentence with a large effect: The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. Because a void or inexistent contract produces no legal effect from the very beginning, the law does not let the mere passage of time cure it. You may bring the action years later, and you may also raise its nullity as a defense when someone tries to enforce the void agreement against you.
Why voidness is different
The rule flows from what a void contract is. Unlike a contract that is merely voidable — valid until annulled and subject to a limited period to sue — a void or inexistent one is treated as never having existed. There is nothing to ratify and nothing that becomes binding through delay. That is why the article refuses to attach any prescriptive period to the action to have it declared null, and why the objection survives however long the parties have let it lie. Anyone with a genuine interest in the property or the transaction may raise the nullity; the right to attack a void agreement is not confined to one party alone.
What imprescriptibility does not do
This article decides only that the action to declare the contract void does not prescribe. It does not follow that every consequence is likewise timeless. Related claims — for example, recovery of property based on a different theory, or the rights of others who dealt in good faith — may be governed by their own rules. Nor does the article decide whether a particular contract is in fact void; that must still be proved. If you believe an agreement is void, do not assume delay is harmless to every related right; keep your documents and take advice on the specific relief you need.
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.
- Belinda Alexander vs. Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona and Reygan Escalona, G.R. No. 256141, July 19, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Aniceto Uy vs Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, Cagayan de Oro City, Carmencita Naval-Sai, Rep. by Her Attorney-in-Fact Rodolfo Florentino, G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Albrando R. Abellana, G.R. No. 237369, October 19, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Teodoro Tulauan, represented by Tito Tulauan vs. Manuel Mateo; Magdalena Mateo Lorenzo, G.R. No. 248974, September 7, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →