Short answer. Possibly, yes. Rule 130, Section 32 allows an act, declaration, or omission that a prior owner made about the property, while he still held title to it, to be used as evidence against whoever later derives title from him — because a buyer is treated as standing in the seller's shoes regarding what happened to the property under his ownership.
What the law says
Where one derives title to property from another, the latter's act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former [if done] while the latter was holding the title.
Rule 130, Section 32 — Admission by privies. Read the full provision →
What 'admission by privies' means here
This section is titled Admission by privies, and "privies" refers to people connected by succession of interest in the same property — most commonly a buyer stepping into a seller's shoes as owner. The rule says that where one derives title to property from another, the earlier owner's own act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, becomes evidence against the current owner too, on the theory that a successor's claim to the property rises no higher than the interest the predecessor actually had and described.
The timing requirement that limits it
The rule only reaches statements or conduct while the latter was holding the title — meaning while the prior owner still owned the property. A statement your seller made years before he ever owned the land, or one he made after he had already sold it to you, falls outside this particular rule, because the section is specifically about what an owner said or did about the property during the period his own title governed it.
Why a boundary statement fits this rule
A prior owner's acknowledgment about where a boundary actually sits, made while he owned the land, is exactly the kind of declaration this section addresses — it concerns the property and was made while he held title to it. If that statement is inconsistent with the boundary you are now asserting, the other side may try to use it against you precisely because you derived your title from that same owner, and his admissions travel with the property in a way a stranger's statements would not.
What this means practically for a buyer
Because this rule can bind a buyer to what a seller said or did about the land, it is worth asking a seller directly about known boundary disputes, easements, or similar issues before completing a purchase — not because the law requires disclosure through this rule, but because whatever the seller said while he owned the property can resurface as evidence against you once you are the one holding title and defending it.