Short answer. Possibly, but only if your belief was reasonable. Article 1127 defines good faith as the reasonable belief that the person you bought from was the owner and could transmit ownership. If you had no reasonable basis to believe that, buying from a non-owner defeats the good faith ordinary prescription requires.
What the law says
The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
Civil Code, Article 1127 — Good Faith of the Possessor. Read the full provision →
Good faith has a precise legal meaning here
Article 1127 does not treat good faith as simply meaning you did not personally intend to do anything wrong. The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. Two things have to be true: you believed the seller owned the land, and you believed the seller had the power to pass that ownership to you. The belief also has to be reasonable, not simply sincere — an honest but careless assumption is not automatically enough.
Buying from a non-owner does not automatically defeat good faith
The fact that your seller turned out not to be the real owner does not, by itself, mean you lacked good faith at the time you bought the land. What matters is whether your belief that the seller was the owner was reasonable given what was actually available to you to check — the title, the seller's documents, and the circumstances of the sale. Someone can reasonably believe a seller is the owner and still be wrong, if nothing available at the time would have revealed the defect.
What can undermine the reasonableness of your belief
If there were visible red flags you ignored — a title that did not match the seller's name, an obviously irregular document, or facts that would have prompted a reasonably careful buyer to investigate further — your belief may not qualify as reasonable under this article, even if you personally never suspected anything was wrong. Reasonableness is judged against what a prudent buyer in your position would have done with the information actually available, not against your subjective certainty alone.
Why this matters for ordinary prescription
Ordinary acquisitive prescription depends on possession that is both in good faith and with just title, running for the shorter period the law allows for that kind of prescription. If your belief in the seller's ownership and capacity to transmit it was reasonable at the time you acquired possession, you can still meet the good faith element even though the seller was not the true owner. If it was not reasonable, you may still be able to acquire the property through possession, but only under the longer period that does not require good faith.
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.
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel C. Cortez, G.R. No. 186639, February 5, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rosario P. Tan vs. Artemio G. Ramirez, et al, G.R. No. 158929, August 3, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Limcoma Multi-Purpose Corp. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167652, July 10, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →