Vehicle vandalism — keying, slashing tires, smashing windows, spray-painting, or any deliberate damage to a motor vehicle — remains one of the most frustrating violations of property rights in the Philippines. When the act is clearly captured on dashcam, CCTV, or any video recording, the victim possesses exceptionally strong evidence of both the act itself and the identity of the perpetrator. However, even the clearest video evidence becomes useless if the victim fails to file the civil claim within the prescriptive period provided by law.

This article exhaustively discusses the statute of limitations applicable to civil claims for property damage arising from vehicle vandalism under Philippine law, the legal bases available to the victim, when the period begins to run, grounds for interruption or tolling, jurisdictional and procedural requirements, recoverable damages, and practical considerations when the act is captured on video.

Legal Bases for the Civil Claim

The civil action for property damage caused by vandalism may be grounded on any of the following, either singly or collectively:

Civil liability arising from crime (Article 100, Revised Penal Code in relation to Articles 327–331 on malicious mischief)
Violation of Article 20 of the Civil Code (“Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”)
Injury to property rights (Article 1146[1], Civil Code)
Quasi-delict (Article 2176, Civil Code) – applicable when the act, though intentional, is pleaded as fault without invoking the criminal aspect
Abuse of right (Article 19) or acts contra bonus mores (Article 21), especially when the vandalism is motivated by hatred, revenge, or ill will

The most commonly invoked and most victim-friendly basis in pure property damage cases is Article 20 in relation to Article 1146(1) of the Civil Code.

Prescriptive Period: Four (4) Years

The prevailing and consistent rule under Philippine jurisprudence is that the civil action for damages for vehicle vandalism prescribes in four (4) years.

Legal basis:

Article 1146, Civil Code:
“The following actions must be commenced within four years:
(1) Upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict.”

Supreme Court decisions that have repeatedly applied the 4-year period to property damage cases, even when the act constitutes a crime, include:

Tan v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 92773, 1992)
Kramer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 83524, 1989)
Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Cuizon (G.R. No. 167552, 2005, reiterated in subsequent cases)
Numerous other rulings involving damage to property caused by intentional or negligent acts

The four-year period applies whether the action is filed independently or reserved from the criminal case. Even when the criminal action for malicious mischief has already prescribed (which can be as short as 5 years or as long as 15 years depending on the value of damage and imposable penalty), the purely civil action based on Article 20 or injury to rights survives and remains subject only to the 4-year rule.

When the Four-Year Period Begins to Run

General rule: The period commences from the day the cause of action accrues, i.e., from the date the damage was inflicted (the moment the vandalism occurred).

Exceptions and qualifications recognized in jurisprudence:

Discovery rule for latent damage
If the damage was not immediately noticeable (e.g., minor keying hidden under dust or in an inconspicuous area, or the vehicle was parked unused for weeks), the period starts from the date the owner discovered or should have reasonably discovered the damage (Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, G.R. No. 186614, 2011, by analogy).
Discovery of the perpetrator’s identity
When the identity of the vandal is initially unknown or concealed, several decisions have applied the “discovery rule” or “blameless ignorance” doctrine by analogy with fraud cases under Article 1144(3). The period may be reckoned from the date the victim, through reasonable diligence, discovers the identity of the perpetrator (see separate opinions and concurring views in Allied Banking Corp. v. Lim Sio Wan, G.R. No. 133179, 2008, and subsequent cases).
In video-captured cases, this issue rarely arises because facial identification, license plates, or distinctive clothing usually allow prompt identification.
Continuing damage
If the vandalism causes continuing or progressive damage (e.g., acid poured on paint that continues to corrode over time), the period runs from the cessation of the continuing wrong.

Interruption of the Prescriptive Period (Article 1155, Civil Code)

The four-year period is interrupted by:

Filing of the civil action in court
Written extrajudicial demand by the offended party (acknowledged or not replied to)
Written acknowledgment of the obligation by the perpetrator

Mere filing of a police blotter or criminal complaint does not interrupt the civil prescriptive period unless the civil action is expressly instituted or reserved therein.

Effect of Video Evidence on Prescription and Substantive Rights

The existence of clear video footage does not change the prescriptive period, but it has the following important effects:

Practically eliminates denial of the act and identity, making summary judgment or early resolution highly probable.
Allows the victim to immediately identify the perpetrator, removing any possible argument for tolling under the discovery-of-identity rule.
Serves as best evidence (Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence), making the case virtually unassailable on the fact of damage and authorship.
Strengthens claims for moral and exemplary damages by conclusively proving malice, deliberateness, and sometimes even the vandal’s contemptuous or mocking behavior.

Jurisdiction and Venue

As of December 2025, the jurisdictional amounts (adjusted for inflation via Supreme Court circulars) are approximately:

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) in Metro Manila: exclusive original jurisdiction over damages claims of P2,000,000 or less
Municipal Trial Courts outside Metro Manila: P1,000,000 or less
Regional Trial Courts: claims exceeding the above amounts

Venue: Court of the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff (Rule 4, Rules of Court), or where the damage occurred if an action in rem.

Mandatory Barangay Conciliation

If both parties reside in the same city/municipality (or adjoining barangays of different municipalities within the same province), the case must first undergo barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (P.D. 1508 as amended). Failure to do so is ground for dismissal without prejudice.

Exception: When the claim is joined with a criminal action or when the parties do not reside in the same or adjacent barangays.

Recoverable Damages in Vandalism Cases

Actual/compensatory damages – repair or replacement cost, supported by repair estimates, official receipts, or body shop quotations
Damages for loss of use – transportation expenses (Grab, rental car) during repair period
Moral damages – allowable under Article 2219(1) RPC in relation to criminal acts, or Article 2217 Civil Code for willful injury to property when accompanied by mental anguish, wounded feelings, or besmirched reputation (especially when the vandalism is targeted harassment)
Exemplary damages – routinely awarded in vandalism cases to deter similar acts (Article 2229, Civil Code), particularly when video shows brazenness or contempt
Attorney’s fees – recoverable under Article 2208(1) when exemplary damages are awarded, or (4) in case of clearly unfounded denial of the claim
Interest – 6% per annum legal interest from date of demand or judicial demand until fully paid (Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, 2013)

Practical Recommendations for Victims with Video Evidence

Immediately preserve the original video file and create authenticated copies.
Report to the barangay and police within 24–48 hours for blotter and possible criminal prosecution.
Obtain at least three repair quotations from reputable shops.
Send a formal demand letter (preferably through counsel) within the first year — this interrupts prescription and strengthens claims for attorney’s fees.
File the civil complaint well before the fourth anniversary of the incident (or discovery, if applicable).
If insured under comprehensive motor car insurance, claim from the insurer first (vandalism is a covered peril). The insurer, upon payment, becomes subrogated to your rights and may pursue the vandal in its own name.

Conclusion

Under Philippine civil law, a victim of vehicle vandalism captured on video has an extremely strong case for full recovery of all damages suffered. However, the right to sue civilly is absolutely extinguished four (4) years after the vandalism occurred (or, in exceptional cases, after discovery of the damage or the perpetrator’s identity). Delay beyond this period, no matter how clear the video evidence, will result in outright dismissal of the complaint on ground of prescription.

Act promptly. The law grants you four years — but justice is best served when the claim is filed while the evidence is fresh and the perpetrator’s ability to pay remains intact.