Text of the provision
Art. 1116. 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.
(1939)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code is governed by the prior laws; prescription not yet running is governed by this Code — the transitional rule for the 30 August 1950 changeover.
This is the bridge provision between the old prescription rules and the ones the Civil Code introduced when it took effect. If a prescriptive period had already begun running under the earlier law, that earlier law continues to govern it. But if, counting only from the Code's effectivity, the full period the Code itself requires has already elapsed, the new Code's shorter period applies instead — even though the old law might have demanded a longer wait. The rule favors whichever computation lets prescription mature first under the new regime.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1115 — Special Laws Preserved.
- Article 1118 — Possession That Ripens Into Ownership.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Dominica Cutanda, et al. vs. Heirs of Roberto Cutanda, etc. and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109215, July 11, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.