MALACAÑANG
Manila

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1755, S. 1980

A DECREE AMENDING ARTICLE 1146 OF THE CIVIL CODE

Historical edition — Presidential Decree No. 1755, dated December 24, 1980. This is a typed government text, not a signed facsimile. Its operative wording agrees with the Supreme Court E-Library copy, apart from that copy's evident typing slips (such as "within are (1) year" for "within one (1) year").

WHEREAS, the transition from the period of Martial Law to that of normalcy in our present political situation requires the immediate and expeditious settlement of whatever disputes that may have arisen out of the proclamation of Martial Law, inclusive of actions for damages against public officers by those who feel aggrieved by the action, activity or conduct of such public officers in the implementation of Martial Law;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and promulgate:

1. Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is hereby amended to read as follows:

"The following actions must be instituted within four years:

(1) Upon 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."

2. This Decree takes effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 24th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty.

(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President
Republic of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) JUAN C. TUVERA
Senior Presidential Assistant

Reader note on later decisions. In Aberca v. Ver, G.R. No. 69866, April 15, 1988 (243 Phil. 735, 749–754), the Court held that suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus did not destroy the damages action for constitutional-rights violations. It expressly quoted P.D. 1755’s one-year proviso as recognizing that action and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision neither invalidated that proviso nor decided compliance with its one-year period; its discussion of a moot constitutional issue concerned the suspension of the writ.

For ordinary quasi-delict claims, De Jesus v. Uyloan, G.R. No. 234851, February 15, 2022, applied Article 1146’s four-year period to the medical-negligence claim pleaded there. The type of cause of action matters in selecting the prescription rule.

For insurer subrogation based on quasi-delict, Henson, Jr. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 223134, August 14, 2019, prospectively abandoned Vector Shipping Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., G.R. No. 159213, July 3, 2013. Henson held that the insurer inherits the insured’s remaining period; payment does not start a new period. Its transition guidelines distinguish pending actions, when they were filed, and whether the tort preceded the decision’s finality. This historical decree and the cited decisions do not determine a filing deadline for a particular claim.