Short answer. Yes. Article 1108 provides that prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against persons living abroad who have managers or administrators. Because you have an administrator managing your property while abroad, the prescriptive period continues to run against your rights just as it would if you were present.
What the law says
Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against: (1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives; (2) Absentees who have administrators, either appointed by them before their disappearance, or appointed by the courts; (3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators; (4) Juridical persons, except the State and its subdivisions.
Civil Code, Article 1108 — Against Whom Prescription Runs. Read the full provision →
Living abroad with an administrator does not pause prescription
Article 1108 lists persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators as one of the categories against whom prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs. This directly answers your situation: your physical absence from the Philippines does not, by itself, stop the prescriptive clock from running against your property rights, because you have someone managing your affairs here in your absence. The presence of that administrator is precisely what the law treats as sufficient to keep prescription running normally.
Why having a manager or administrator matters
The rationale behind this rule is that a person represented by someone capable of acting on their behalf is not truly defenseless against the passage of time. Your administrator, managing your property while you are abroad, is in a position to watch for adverse claims, take action to protect your rights, or interrupt prescription through the appropriate legal steps if someone attempts to acquire your property or a claim against it lapses. Because that representative capacity exists, the law does not extend you the same protection it gives someone who genuinely has nobody looking after their interests.
The categories this article treats the same way
Article 1108 groups several situations together under this same rule: minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians, or other legal representatives, absentees who have administrators appointed before their disappearance or by the courts, persons living abroad with managers or administrators, and juridical persons other than the State and its subdivisions. In each case, the common thread is that someone capable of protecting the person's interests is already in place, which is why prescription is allowed to continue running against all of them despite their own personal absence or incapacity.
What this means for protecting your property while abroad
Since prescription continues to run against you regardless of your absence, the practical safeguard is making sure your administrator is actually attentive to threats against your property, such as adverse possession or claims that could ripen through the passage of time. The law places the burden on ensuring your representative acts diligently, since it separately gives a person disqualified from administering their own property the right to claim damages from a legal representative whose negligence caused prescription to run against them.
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.
- Bartola M. Vda De Tirona, et al. vs. Cirilo Encarnacion, G.R. No. 168902, September 28, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sheriff Albert A. Dela Cruz of the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services, the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services vs. Wellex Group, Inc, G.R. No. 247439, August 23, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippine, et al. vs. Heirs of Agustin L. Angeles, et al, G.R. No. 141296, October 7, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →