Short answer. Yes. Rule 130, Section 43 allows common reputation existing before the controversy arose, as to boundaries or customs affecting land in the community, to be given in evidence, along with monuments and inscriptions in public places as evidence of that same reputation.

What the law says

Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history important to the community, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence.

Rule 130, Section 43 — Common reputation. Read the full provision →

Why reputation evidence is allowed for boundaries at all

Ordinarily, a witness can only testify to what they personally know or perceived, and secondhand community talk would normally be barred as hearsay stacked on hearsay. Boundary disputes are an area where the law makes a deliberate exception, because the alternative is often no evidence at all: property lines drawn generations ago, before precise surveys or clear paper records existed, frequently survive only in the collective memory of the people who have lived alongside them. Section 43 recognizes that a community's longstanding, consistent understanding of where a boundary sits is itself a meaningful kind of proof, even though no single witness personally established the line.

The timing requirement matters

The reputation has to have existed "previous to the controversy" — meaning it reflects a genuine, settled community understanding that predates the current dispute, not an account manufactured or newly circulated once litigation became likely. A boundary belief that only started making the rounds after the parties began arguing over the fence line carries much less weight, and may not qualify as the kind of reputation this section contemplates at all, since the whole rationale depends on the belief being an organic, longstanding one rather than something shaped by the dispute itself.

What counts as supporting proof of that reputation

The rule specifically calls out monuments and inscriptions in public places as admissible evidence of common reputation — physical markers, old boundary stones, or similar fixtures that reflect what the community has long treated as the dividing line. Testimony from longtime residents about what older generations consistently said regarding where the line falls can serve the same function. None of this replaces a proper survey or title documents where those exist, but where the paper record is thin or contested, reputation evidence rooted in genuine community consensus can carry real weight in resolving where a boundary actually lies.

What this evidence does not establish on its own

Common reputation evidence is not the same as conclusive proof of title, and it does not override a valid, properly registered survey or title document that actually conflicts with the community's belief. It is weighed alongside whatever other evidence exists, and a party relying on it should expect the other side to test how genuinely widespread and longstanding the reputation actually is, rather than treating a handful of neighbors' say-so as automatically decisive. Where reliable documentary evidence of the boundary exists, reputation evidence tends to function as corroboration rather than as the primary basis for the court's finding.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.