Short answer. No. Prescription does not run between husband and wife at all, and it makes no difference that the couple have separated their property by marriage settlement or by judicial decree. However long one spouse has held the other's property, the clock has never started.
What the law says
Prescription does not run between husband and wife, even though there be a separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlements or by judicial decree.
Civil Code, Article 1109 — When Prescription Does Not Run. Read the full provision →
Suspended, not merely paused
Prescription works by turning long, undisturbed possession into ownership, on the theory that a person who sleeps on a claim for years should lose it. Article 1109 removes spouses from that scheme entirely. Between them the period does not run, so the possession never accumulates into anything, no matter how many years it covers. The rule protects a spouse from having to sue the person she lives with in order to preserve a right — an act that would poison the marriage to save a title, which is precisely the choice the law refuses to impose.
Separation of property changes nothing
The clause that surprises people is the second one. The suspension holds even though there be a separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlements or by judicial decree. Couples who signed a prenuptial agreement, or who obtained a decree separating their property years ago, sometimes assume they now deal with each other as strangers do. For prescription purposes they do not. The property regime governs what each spouse owns; it does not restore the running of a period that the marriage itself holds in suspension.
Two other relationships in the same article
The article extends the same protection to relationships built on dependence rather than affection. Prescription does not run between parents and children, during the minority or insanity of the latter, and between guardian and ward during the continuance of the guardianship. The logic is that a person who cannot realistically assert a claim against the very person managing his affairs should not lose it by silence. Note the limits written into the text: for parent and child the suspension lasts only through minority or insanity, and for guardian and ward only while the guardianship continues.
What this means for a claim raised late
The practical value of the article is defensive, and it usually surfaces long afterwards — when property is being settled on separation, or divided among heirs after a spouse dies, and the occupying side argues that too much time has passed. It has not. What still has to be proved is ownership, which is a separate question the article does not touch, so the documents that matter remain the title, the deed of acquisition, the date of acquisition relative to the marriage, and any marriage settlement. The delay is excused; the proof of ownership still has to be produced.