Short answer. Generally the old law, unless the new Civil Code's shorter period would already have run since 1950. Prescription already running before the Code's effectivity is governed by the laws previously in force, but if the Code's own required period has fully elapsed since it took effect, the Code applies instead, even if the old law demanded a longer period.
What the law says
Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws previously in force; but if since the time this Code took effect the entire period herein required for prescription should elapse, the present Code shall be applicable, even though by the former laws a longer period might be required.
Civil Code, Article 1116 — Prescription Already Running in 1950. Read the full provision →
The general rule: old law governs prescription already running
Because your dispute's prescriptive clock started ticking before the Civil Code took effect, the default rule points you to the laws previously in force — the prior legislation that governed prescription at the time your period began running, not the Civil Code's own periods. This respects that the parties' expectations were formed under the earlier legal framework at the point prescription actually started.
The exception that can flip the answer to the new Code
The article then supplies a specific override: if, counting from when the Civil Code took effect, the entire period the present Code requires for that kind of prescription has already elapsed, then the Civil Code applies instead — even where the old law would have demanded a longer period that has not yet fully run. In effect, whichever rule gets you to a completed prescriptive period first, measured this specific way, is the one that controls.
Why the law is built this way
This transitional rule keeps disputes from being trapped indefinitely under an older, longer prescriptive period just because they happened to begin before 1950. By letting the Civil Code's shorter period run from its own effective date and apply once that shorter period is complete, the law avoids penalizing parties with an outdated timetable simply because of when their situation originated, while still respecting the old law's authority over periods already substantially underway.
What you would need to work out for your case
To know which period actually applies to your dispute, you would need to identify what the prior law required for prescription in your specific kind of case, and separately calculate whether the Civil Code's own required period — running from the Code's effectivity rather than from when your dispute began — has already been completed. This article supplies the rule for choosing between the two; it does not itself state either specific period, since that depends on the type of action and the applicable Civil Code provision governing 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.
- Roberto Sta. Ana Dy, et al. vs. Bonifacio A. Yu, et al, G.R. No. 202632, July 8, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Tirso D. Monteroso vs. Court of Appeals, et al. / Sofia Pendejito Vda De Monteroso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 105608 / G.R. No. 113199, April 30, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Soledad Canezo etc., et al. vs. Concepcion Rojas, G.R. No. 148788, November 23, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Delfina Vda. De Rigonan, et al. vs. Zoroaster Derecho, et al, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →