Short answer. Not if the summons was void for lack of legal solemnities. Article 1124 of the Civil Code provides that judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued — and shall not give rise to interruption — when it is void for lack of legal solemnities. The prescriptive period keeps running as if no case were filed.
What the law says
Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption: (1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities
Civil Code, Article 1124 — When Summons Does Not Interrupt. Read the full provision →
The general rule: filing a case interrupts prescription
Prescription — the rule that a claim must be brought within a set number of years — is ordinarily interrupted when a court case is filed and judicial summons is served. From that point, the prescriptive period stops running, and the opposing party cannot raise prescription as a defense for the period while the case is pending. This protection, however, depends on the summons being valid. A defective summons can strip the filing of any interrupting effect, leaving the prescriptive clock running the entire time.
When the summons is deemed not to have been issued
Article 1124 of the Civil Code lists three situations in which judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption. The first is directly relevant here: when the summons is void for lack of legal solemnities. The second is when the plaintiff desists from the complaint or allows the proceedings to lapse. The third is when the possessor is absolved from the complaint. In all three cases, the period of the interruption is counted — meaning the time the case was supposedly pending is added back to the prescriptive period as if nothing had stopped it.
What 'void for lack of legal solemnities' means
A summons may be void for procedural defects in how it was prepared, served, or authorized. The rules of court prescribe specific requirements for summons: its form, who may serve it, the manner of service, and when substituted service is permissible. A summons that skips required steps — for example, one served in a manner not authorized by the rules, or one that omits mandatory information — may be found void for lack of legal solemnities. Whether your particular summons falls in this category depends on what the defect was and what the rules required at the time of service.
Practical effect: the prescriptive period may already have lapsed
If the summons was void, the filing of the case gave you no protection. The prescriptive clock ran through the entire period the case was pending — and the time that elapsed while the case was in court is added back, not subtracted. This means it is possible for your right to raise prescription to have matured during the litigation itself, even without you doing anything to let it lapse. If you are in this situation, the question of whether your defense of prescription is still available — or whether it was somehow preserved — requires careful analysis of the dates and the specific defect. A lawyer familiar with the procedural rules can assess whether the summons was truly void and what that means for your defense.
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.
- Heirs of Beinvenido and Araceli Tanyag, namely Arturo Tanyag, Aida T. Jocson and Zenaid T. Veloso vs. Salome E. Gabriel, et al, G.R. No. 175763, April 11, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo, et al. vs. Agrifina Ranon, et al, G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara, G.R. No. 131074, March 27, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →