Short answer. Yes. Article 1129 of the Civil Code defines just title for purposes of prescription as one where the claimant acquired possession through a recognized legal mode — such as a sale — even though the grantor was not the true owner. A defective title from a non-owner can still be a just title.
What the law says
For the purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.
Civil Code, Article 1129 — Just Title Defined. Read the full provision →
Just title does not mean perfect title
Article 1129 draws a critical distinction. For ordinary purposes, a 'just title' might mean a title that is legally valid and unassailable. For the purposes of acquisitive prescription, the law uses a narrower, more specific definition: a just title is one where the claimant entered possession through a recognized legal mode — sale, donation, inheritance, or similar — even though the person who transferred it had no right to do so. The grantor's lack of ownership or incapacity to transmit does not destroy the just title character of the transaction for prescription purposes.
Why this matters for acquisitive prescription
Acquisitive prescription allows a person who has possessed property openly, continuously, and in good faith under a just title to eventually become the owner by operation of law. The point of requiring a just title — even a defective one from a non-owner — is that prescription is meant for someone who genuinely believed they were acquiring ownership through a proper transaction, not for someone who simply occupied property without any legal basis. The just title shows the claimant had a colorable legal foundation, even if the chain of ownership had a gap.
Good faith is also required
A just title alone does not complete the requirements for ordinary acquisitive prescription. The claimant must also have been in good faith — meaning they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the grantor lacked authority to sell. If you bought the property from someone who turned out not to be the owner, but you had every reason to believe they were the owner at the time, you satisfy the good faith requirement. If you knew or should have known of the defect, good faith is absent and ordinary prescription does not run in your favor.
Practical implications for your situation
If you are in possession of land purchased from someone who was not the true owner, and you have been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession in good faith for the period required by law, you may have a prescription claim to explore. The length of possession required depends on whether the land is registered. A lawyer who handles property law can review your specific situation — the deed, how long you have been in possession, what you knew or should have known when you bought, and whether the land is registered — to assess whether a prescription claim is viable.
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.
- Spouses Jaime and Matilde Poon vs. Prime Savings Bank represent by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as Statutory Liquidator, G.R. No. 183794, June 13, 2016 — 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 →
- Desamparados M. Soliva, et al. vs. The Intestate Estate of Marcelo M. Villalba, et al, G.R. No. 154017, December 8, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →