Text of the provision
Art. 1124. 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;
(2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings to lapse;
(3) If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint. In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the prescription.
(1946a)
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
Judicial summons is deemed not to have been issued and does not interrupt prescription if it is void for want of legal formalities, if the plaintiff desists or the case is dismissed, or if the possessor is absolved.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1123 — Civil Interruption.
- Article 1125 — Recognition by the Possessor.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
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.