Statute of Limitations vs. Statute of Repose
[1] A statute of limitations focuses on requiring timeliness of action from an injured party, and thus may potentially be extended where a delay in commencing a legal action is not the injured party's fault. The operation of statutes of limitation can be avoided or tolled by a number of equitable factors, such as the minority of the injured party, or attempts by a tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility. Some statutes of limitation begin to run only when the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury.
[2] A statute of repose focuses on immunizing the alleged injuring party from long-term liability, and thus may even be based on elapsed time from an event, even if the potential cause of action cannot reasonably be discovered until a later date. ("P. Stolz Family Partnership LP v. Daum, 355 F.3d 92, 102 (2d Cir. 2004)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 17 August 2017.)
The statute of limitations of civil actions was explained in Penales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73611, October 27, 1986, 115 SCRA 223, 228 in the following manner: Prescription is rightly regarded as a statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or death or removal of witnesses.
The statute of limitations of civil actions was explained in Penales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73611, October 27, 1986, 115 SCRA 223, 228 in the following manner: Prescription is rightly regarded as a statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or death or removal of witnesses.