Short answer. No. Article 1119 says acts of possession done under a license or by mere tolerance of the owner are not available for the purposes of possession. Staying on land because the owner allowed it does not build toward acquisitive prescription, no matter how many years pass, because tolerated occupancy is never treated as adverse possession.
What the law says
Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the purposes of possession.
Civil Code, Article 1119 — Possession by Mere Tolerance Does Not Count. Read the full provision →
Why tolerated possession does not count
Acquisitive prescription rewards possession that is adverse to the owner — occupation the owner could have objected to and chose not to stop within the legal period. Article 1119 excludes a different category entirely: acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner. If you are on the land because the owner said yes, your occupation is not adverse to anything; it exists with the owner's blessing, and the law will not let permission quietly convert into a claim of ownership just because enough time passes.
How tolerance is different from acquiescence to a hostile claim
The distinction the article draws is between an owner who permits use and an owner who fails to act against use they never agreed to. Only the second kind of inaction — silence in the face of possession that was never authorized — can eventually ripen into prescription, because that is possession genuinely adverse to the owner's rights. Tolerance is the opposite: the owner has actively allowed the occupancy, which means there was never a period during which the owner was supposed to be objecting. No amount of years converts permitted use into the kind of possession prescription requires.
What can change the character of your possession
None of this means tolerated occupancy can never lead anywhere — it means it does not do so simply by continuing. If the owner's permission is withdrawn and you refuse to leave, or if your possession becomes genuinely adverse in some other clear way, a different analysis begins from that point. But the years spent occupying the land with the owner's consent do not count toward the prescriptive period; only time spent in possession that is adverse to the owner, after tolerance has actually ended, can start building toward it.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Herminio M. Gutierrez, et al. vs. Flora Mendoza-Plaza, et al, G.R. No. 185477, December 4, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Power Corporation vs. Sps. Jose C. Campos, Jr., et al, G.R. No. 143643, June 27, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philip C. Santos vs. Ladislao M. Santos, G.R. No. 139524, October 12, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rosita G. Tan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 125861, September 9, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →