Explanation of Article 304

Explanation of Article 304

The article addresses the effect of interrupting the limitation period; the first paragraph establishes the general rule that if the limitation period is interrupted for any of the reasons outlined in Article (302), a new limitation period, identical to the first, begins to be calculated. This period starts from the end of the effect resulting from the reason for the interruption. If the interruption is due to the debtor's acknowledgment, a new period begins following this acknowledgment. If the interruption is due to a legal claim and the creditor's requests are granted or a judgment of non-jurisdiction is issued, a new period begins after the issuance of this judgment. If the interruption is due to another legal procedure, the new period begins after the effect of this procedure ends. In all these cases, the calculation of the new period starts from the day following the end of the effect resulting from the reason for the interruption, in accordance with the general rule stated in Article (299).

The new limitation period is identical to the previous period; if the right is subject to a ten-year limitation period, the new period will also be ten years. If it is subject to a five-year or annual limitation, the new period will likewise be five years or one year.

The second paragraph exempts two cases from the general rule in the first paragraph, which is that the new limitation period after the reason for the interruption ceases is identical to the previous period:

The first case: If the reason that interrupted the previous limitation ends with the issuance of a judicial ruling on the right, a new period begins from the issuance of this ruling, and this period is ten years, regardless of the previous limitation period, even if the previous limitation period was five years or one year. This is because the issuance of the ruling strengthens the right and negates the presumption of payment, which was a justification for shortening the limitation periods for those rights.

An exception to this case is if the right adjudicated includes periodic obligations that are not due until after the issuance of the ruling, the new limitation period for them is identical to the first period, i.e., five years. For example, if the ruling obliges the tenant to pay the rent due until the issuance of the ruling and what is due from the time of the ruling until execution, the rent due is subject to a ten-year limitation because it has lost its periodic and renewable nature, whereas what is due after the ruling is subject to a five-year limitation because it retains its periodic and renewable nature.

The second case: If the right is among the rights mentioned in paragraph (a) of Article (296) or in Article (297), these rights, according to these articles, are of two types:

The first type: Rights of professionals for work related to their professions and expenses incurred, which are subject to a five-year limitation.

The second type: Rights of merchants for goods and services provided to non-traders, and rights of establishments prepared for accommodating guests and restaurants and similar activities, and rights of workers from daily and non-daily wages and the price of things they provided. This type of rights is subject to a one-year limitation.

In both types of rights, if the limitation period is interrupted due to the debtor's acknowledgment, a new period begins, but contrary to the general rule, it is not identical to the first limitation period, which is five years for the first type of rights and one year for the second type; rather, the new period is ten years starting after this acknowledgment, due to the absence of the presumption of payment, which was a justification for shortening the limitation in these rights. This ruling is consistent with the provision of Article (298).

However, if the limitation of either type is interrupted by means other than acknowledgment, such as a legal claim ending in non-jurisdiction, the new period is identical to the first period according to the general rule established in the first paragraph of the article.

The principle is that the interruption of the limitation does not extend its effect to other creditors or to other rights whose limitation was not interrupted. As for its effect not extending to other creditors, an application of this is if the debt is shared among several creditors, such as heirs, for example, and is divisible among them, and one of them interrupts the limitation, the rest of the heirs do not benefit from it. Another application is if the creditor interrupts the limitation against the original debtor, it does not interrupt against the guarantor, and if it is interrupted against the guarantor, it does not interrupt against the original debtor. If the limitation is interrupted against one of the joint debtors, it does not interrupt against the rest of the joint debtors, but if a joint creditor interrupts the limitation, the rest of the joint creditors benefit from it, applying the principle of mutual representation in what benefits in solidarity.

As for the interruption of the limitation affecting only the right in which the limitation was interrupted, this is the principle; the interruption of the limitation does not extend to other rights existing between the creditor and the debtor. If the creditor has several rights against the debtor, and acknowledges one of them, the limitation is interrupted for that right without affecting the other rights. However, if the right is one but gives rise to two different claims against one debtor, the interruption of the limitation in one of them interrupts the limitation in the other; an example of this is the buyer's right to warranty for defect by requesting rescission or reduction of the price. If the buyer interrupts the limitation in the rescission claim, it is interrupted accordingly in the price reduction claim, and if it is interrupted in the price reduction claim, it is also interrupted in the rescission claim.

Related To

Article 304

1. If the statute of limitations is suspended, a new statute of limitations the period of which is similar to the original one shall commence from the time the effect of the cause of suspension terminates.

2. If a judicial ruling establishes a right, or if the right is one of the rights provided for in Article 296(a) or Article 297 of this Law, and the statute of limitations is suspended due to the debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt, the new statute of limitations shall be 10 years, unless said right includes renewable periodic rights that are not payable until the judicial ruling is rendered.