I possessed a piece of land years ago, then again more recently, but there's a gap where I can't prove I was there the whole time — does the law presume I continuously possessed it in between?

What Article 1138 lists

Article 1138 of the Civil Code sets three rules for computing the time needed for prescription: "(1) The present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor in interest; (2) It is presumed that the present possessor who was also the possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in possession during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary; (3) The first day shall be excluded and the last day included." The second rule is the one that speaks directly to your gap.

How the presumption applies to your gap

The second rule addresses your exact situation: "it is presumed that the present possessor who was also the possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in possession during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary." Because you possessed the land years ago and possess it again now, the law's default position fills in the gap for you — it presumes continuous possession through the intervening period rather than requiring you to independently prove every moment of it.

This is rebuttable, not automatic

The presumption comes with a built-in limit: it holds "unless there is proof to the contrary." If someone can actually show, with evidence, that possession was interrupted during the gap — that someone else was in possession, or that the land was abandoned for a period — the presumption can be overcome. It is a starting position the law hands you, not a conclusion nobody can ever challenge.

The other computation rules in the same article

Article 1138 also addresses a related but different question — combining separate periods of possession by different people. Its first rule lets the present possessor complete the prescriptive period by "tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor in interest," which matters if the land passed through someone else's hands before reaching you. Its third rule sets a simple counting convention: the first day of the period is excluded, and the last day is included.

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.

• Roi Guzman David vs. Caridad D. Butay, G.R. No. 220996, April 26, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Nenita Quality Foods Corporation vs. Crisostomo Galabo, et al, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013 — 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 →
• Servando Mangahas vs. the Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 95815, March 10, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1138 — Computing the Period (Tacking)