In Ongsiako, et al. v. Ongsiako, et al., L-7510, Mar. 30, 1957, the Supreme Court held that Art. 1116 (Civil
Code) prevails over the general transitory rule in Art. 2258 (Civil Code) which provides that actions and
rights which came into being but which were not exercised before the effectivity of the Code, shall
remain in full force in conformity with the old legislation, but the exercise, duration, and procedure to
enforce them shall be regulated by the Rules of Court
The case of Ongsiako, et al. vs. Ongsiako, et al. (L-7510, March 30, 1957) as cited by
Paras in his book is instructive. It states that although Article 764 provides that the
donation shall be revoked "at the instance of the donor" when the donee fails to comply
with any of the conditions which the former imposed on the latter, the Supreme Court
held that the donor may not revoked (sic) a donation by his own unilateral act, even if
the donee should have broken any of the conditions imposed by the donation. A court
action is essential, if the donee refuses to return the property voluntarily.
What is prescription?
Prescription is the loss or acquisition of a right through lapse of time. The law defined it by the
following article as:
Art. 1106. By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse
of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. In the same way, rights
and conditions are lost by prescription. (1930a)
What are the types of prescription?
1. Acquisitive prescription is when one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse
of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. It is also known as adverse
possession. It must be enough that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Adverse possession has two kinds namely:


Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription which requires possession of things in good faith
and with just title for the time fixed by law which is 10 years.
Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription which is the acquisition of ownership and other
real rights without the need of title or of good faith or any other condition and would
prescribe in 30 years.
The aforementioned discussion is supported by these provisions:
Art. 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary
or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in
good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law. (1940a)
Art. 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and
uninterrupted. (1941)
2. Extinctive prescription is when rights and actions are lost through the lapse of time in the manner and under the
conditions laid down by law. It is also known as liberatory prescription. A person’s uninterrupted adverse possession
of patrimonial property for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership pursuant to
Art. 1137 of the Civil Code. The period begins upon the declaration of the government that the subject land is no
longer intended for public service. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or
disposable, remains property of public dominion, pursuant to Art. 420[2] of the Civil Code.
What is the difference between prescription and laches?
1. Prescription – one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under the action laid down by law; it is at least 30-year uninterrupted use of
alienable property of the government reckon from the predecessor-in-interest. It is
sometimes called adverse possession. Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay.It is
a matter of time, statutory, applies at law and is based on a fixed time
2. Laches – the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Delay in
asserting the complainant’s rights. Laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Laches is
principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being
founded on some change in the condition of the property of the relation of the parties, apply
in equity are not based on fixed time.
Things or Properties That Cannot Be Acquired by Prescription.
(a) those protected by a Torrens Title. (Sec. 46, Act No. 496) (Francisco v. Cruz, 43 O.G. 5103). .
(b) movables acquired thru a crime. (Art. 1133, Civil Code). .
(c) those outside the commerce of men. (Art. 1113, Civil Code). .
(d)properties of spouses, parents and children, wards and guardians, under the restrictions imposed by
law. (Art. 1109, Civil Code).
Art. 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
Possessor in the Concept of Holder
A possessor in the concept of holder cannot acquire property by prescription because his possession is
not adverse. Thus, the possession of land in the capacity of administrator (mere holder) cannot ripen
into ownership. (Ranjo v. Payoma, L-1866, May 30, 1951). Neither is the possession by a mortgagee
adverse. (Garcia v. Arjona, L-7279, Oct. 29, 1955).
Art. 1119. Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner
shall not be available for the purposes of possession.
COMMENT: Possession by License or Tolerance of Owner
In possession by license or tolerance, there is implied recognition of ownership residing in ANOTHER.
(See Macaltao v. Castro, CA-GR 22408-R, Aug. 12, 1963).
Art. 1120. Possession is interrupted for the purposes of prescription, naturally or civilly.
COMMENT:
(1) How Possession Is Interrupted for Purposes of Prescription:
(a) naturally. (Arts. 1121, 1122, Civil Code).
(b) civilly. (Arts. 1123, 1124, Civil Code).
(2) Natural Interruption If prescription is interrupted, the old possession will generally not be counted;
the period must begin all over again.
(3) Suspension of Prescription If prescription is merely suspended (as distinguished from interruption),
the old possession will be ADDED. This may hap- pen when during war, the civil courts are NOT open
(Arts. 1136, Civil Code); or when there is a moratorium on the payment of debts. (Talens, et al. v.
Chuakay and Co., GR L-10127, Jun. 30, 29 Arts. 1121-1123 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 1958 andRio
and Co. v. Datu Jolkipli, GR L12301, Apr. 13, 1959).
Art. 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted when through any cause it should cease for more than one
year. The old possession is not revived if a new possession should be exercised by the same adverse
claimant.
COMMENT:
(1) ‘Natural Interruption’ Defined
The definition is implied in the first paragraph. Note the phrase “any cause.”
(2) Reason for the Period Involved Possession de facto is lost if the property be in the possession of
another for more than one year. Hence, if the possession of another has been for one year or less, it is
as if there was no interruption. (Art. 1122, Civil Code).
(3) Reason for the Non-Revival of the Possession Possession here must be continuous and not
interrupted.
Art. 1122. If the natural interruption is for only one year or less, the time elapsed shall be counted in
favor of the prescription.
COMMENT: The Article explains itself.
Art. 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.
COMMENT: Civil Interruption’ Defined
The definition is implicit in the Article. 30 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Arts. 1124-1125 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.
COMMENT:
(1) When Judicial Summons Cannot Be Considered Civil Interruption Three instances are given in the
Article.
NOTE:
If the possessors are sued, but emerge victorious, it is as if there was no interruption during the period
of the suit. (Lacuesta v. Guerrero, 8 Phil. 719).
(2) Apparent Interruption In the three cases given above, it is as if there was NO in- terruption.
“Interruption” in the last sentence should therefore read as “apparent interruption” since under the law
there was never an interruption. (See first sentence).
(3) Applicability to Acquisitive, Not Extinctive Prescription InAmar v. Odianan (L-15179, Sept. 30, 1960),
the Court held that Arts. 1943, 1945, and 1946 of the old Civil Code (and from which Arts. 1120, 1123,
and 1124 of the NewCivil Code were taken), refer to interruption of possession in relation to acquisitive
prescription, and not to cases of extinctive prescription.
Art. 1125. Any express or tacit recognition which the possessor may make of the owner’s right also
interrupts possession. 31
Art. 1126 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
COMMENT:
(1) Recognition by Possessor of Owner’s Right Reason for the Article — Here the possession is no longer
in concepto de dueño oradverse.
(2) Example The act of a government official, duly authorized to so act, in recognizing ownership of land
in a private person, interrupts possession by the municipality concerned. (Seminary of San Carlos v.
Mun. of Cebu, 19 Phil. 32).