Short answer. Quite possibly, because that is the situation the concept is built for. Article 1129 says there is just title where the adverse claimant came into possession through one of the modes recognised by law for acquiring ownership, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.
What the law says
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 →
The definition is built for a defective seller
It reads oddly until you see what it is for. Just title does not mean good title; if the seller had owned the land you would have no need of prescription at all. The article describes a claimant who 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. That is a sale, a donation or another recognised mode that would have transferred ownership but for the defect in the person granting it.
True and valid, and never presumed
Two neighbouring provisions do most of the damage in practice. Article 1130 requires that the title for prescription must be true and valid, so a forged, simulated or fabricated instrument is not just title at all — the flaw has to lie in the grantor's ownership, not in the document. And Article 1131 provides that just title must be proved; it is never presumed. Possession, tax declarations and long occupation prove none of it. The instrument itself, and the transaction behind it, have to be produced.
What just title actually buys is time
Article 1134 provides that ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years, and good faith is required alongside the title. Article 1127 describes that good faith as the reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing was received was the owner and could transmit ownership. Without title or good faith, Article 1137 requires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years. So the practical question is which of those two periods you have been running.
Assemble the transaction, not just the occupation
The deed and its date, proof of payment, whatever the seller showed you about his ownership, the circumstances of the handover, and anything bearing on what you knew or could have known at the time — because good faith is judged then, not now. Then the possession: Article 1118 requires it to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted, so tax declarations, improvements and the dates they began still matter, as evidence of the possession rather than of the title.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1130 — The Title Must Be True and Valid
- Civil Code, Article 1134 — Ordinary Prescription of Immovables — 10 Years