- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 1146
- Topic
- Prescription of Actions
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK III DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP Preliminary Provision
- Title
- TITLE V PRESCRIPTION
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 3 Prescription of Actions
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict; However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
Two kinds of actions must be filed within four years: those for injury to a person's rights, and those based on a quasi-delict (fault or negligence causing damage without a contract). A shorter one-year period applies to actions arising from a public officer's exercise of Martial Law powers, such as arrest, detention, or trial.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Vector Shipping Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company, the Supreme Court held: The Court held that an insurer's subrogation claim is an obligation created by law with a ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144(2). This rule was later abandoned in Henson v. UCPB (G.R. 223134, 2019): a subrogated insurer's claim now prescribes with the underlying obligation — four years for a quasi-delict (Art. 1146). Henson applies prospectively, with transitional guidelines for cases filed under the old rule.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Vector Shipping Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company G.R. No. 159213
- Romeo D. Mariano v. Petron Corporation G.R. No. 169438
- Paolo Anthony C. de Jesus v. Dr. Romeo F. Uyloan G.R. No. 234851
- Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company [Pldt] v. Roberto R. Pingol G.R. No. 182622
- Philippine Airlines v. Hon. Adriano Savillo G.R. No. 149547
- Ragasa v. Roa G.R. No. 141964
- Menandro B. Laureano v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 114776
- Vicente T. Tan v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Former Special First Division) G.R. No. 90365
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.