Short answer. Yes. As the present possessor, you may complete the period required for prescription by tacking your own possession onto that of your grantor or predecessor in interest — the previous owner's years of possession count toward the total period, rather than starting the clock over from your purchase.
What the law says
The present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor in interest;
Civil Code, Article 1138 — Computing the Period (Tacking). Read the full provision →
Tacking lets you add a predecessor's time to your own
This rule exists precisely for your situation: a present possessor — you, having bought the land — may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking your own possession onto that of a grantor or predecessor in interest. The previous owner's years of possessing the land are not lost simply because ownership or possession changed hands; they add to your own time to reach whatever total period the applicable prescription rule requires.
A helpful presumption of continuity
The same article also gives you a presumption to lean on: if you can show you were the possessor at a previous time and are the possessor now, the law presumes you continued to possess throughout the time in between, unless someone proves otherwise. While this presumption is framed around a single possessor's continuity, it reflects the same underlying policy as tacking — that gaps in the record of who held the land when should not by themselves defeat an otherwise continuous chain of possession.
What tacking depends on
Tacking connects your possession to your predecessor's specifically because you succeeded to that possession as a grantor or predecessor in interest relationship — meaning there needs to be a real link, such as a sale or other transfer, between you and the person whose possession you want to add to your own. It does not let a stranger with no connection to the prior possessor claim that person's years simply because both of them happened to occupy the same land at different times.
This provision governs computation, not the underlying requirements
This article tells you how to count the time once tacking applies — it does not itself define what kind of possession qualifies for prescription in the first place, such as whether the possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. Those separate requirements still have to be met by the combined period of possession; tacking only solves the counting problem of whose time gets added together.
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 →