Short answer. Yes. Article 1155 says the prescription of actions is interrupted by filing the action in court, by a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, and by any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. So your debtor's signed letter acknowledging the debt interrupts prescription, and the period begins to run anew from that acknowledgment.
What the law says
The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
Civil Code, Article 1155 — The Three Ways to Interrupt Prescription. Read the full provision →
Prescription can be interrupted
Claims do not last forever; the law fixes prescriptive periods after which an action can no longer be brought. But the running of that period is not always continuous. Article 1155 identifies events that interrupt prescription, stopping the clock and, in effect, resetting it. This protects a creditor who is actively pursuing or being acknowledged on a debt from losing the claim simply because time passed, ensuring that prescription penalises genuine inaction rather than a creditor whose right has been kept alive by one of the recognised acts.
The three interrupting events
The article lists them plainly: the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. So prescription is interrupted by filing suit, by the creditor's written extrajudicial demand for payment, or by the debtor's own written acknowledgment of the debt. Each is a concrete act showing the claim is live, and any one of them is enough to break the running of the prescriptive period.
A written acknowledgment by the debtor
The third mode is the one at issue when a debtor signs a letter admitting the debt. A written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor interrupts prescription. By acknowledging in writing that he owes the debt, the debtor recognises the obligation as still subsisting, which is inconsistent with the idea that the creditor has slept on the claim. The law treats this admission as restarting the clock. It must, however, be a written acknowledgment; a mere verbal admission does not fit the terms of this provision as neatly and is a weaker foundation to rely on.
The effect and the practical lesson
When prescription is interrupted, the time that had elapsed is wiped out and the full prescriptive period begins to run anew from the interrupting event. So a debtor's written acknowledgment not only stops the clock but resets it, giving the creditor a fresh full period within which to sue. For a creditor, the practical value is real: securing a signed acknowledgment from the debtor, or making a written extrajudicial demand, can rescue a claim that was approaching the end of its life and buy a renewed period to enforce 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.
- Spouses Flavio P. Bautista vs. Premiere Development Bank, G.R. No. 201881, July 15, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Diamond Seafoods Corp., et al, G.R. No. 142420, January 29, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries , Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc, G.R. No. 177524, July 23, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →