Short answer. No. The title for prescription must be true and valid. A simulated title — one that is fictitious or does not reflect a real transaction — does not meet this requirement, so it cannot support a claim of ordinary prescription no matter how long possession under it continued.
What the law says
The title for prescription must be true and valid.
Civil Code, Article 1130 — The Title Must Be True and Valid. Read the full provision →
The statute's requirement is direct
The rule is stated in six plain words: the title for prescription must be true and valid. Ordinary acquisitive prescription depends on possessing property under some title — a deed of sale, a donation, or similar instrument — that purports to transfer ownership. This article insists that the title actually be genuine and legally sound, not merely something that looks like a title on paper.
A simulated title fails both requirements
A simulated title is one that does not reflect a real transaction between the parties — it exists on paper to create an appearance of a transfer that never genuinely happened, or that the parties never truly intended to have the effect it states. Such a title is not true, because it misrepresents what actually occurred, and for that same reason it generally cannot be considered valid either. Since the statute requires both qualities together, a simulated title fails the test this article sets.
Why this matters even after long possession
Ordinary prescription is meant to reward someone who has possessed property for the required period under color of a genuine, if perhaps flawed, transfer of ownership. It is not meant to validate possession that began with an outright fiction. However long someone has held property under a simulated title, that length of time does not cure the underlying defect this article addresses — the title itself never met the true-and-valid standard the law requires as the starting point for this particular kind of prescription.
What this article does not decide on its own
This provision states the requirement; it does not itself define every circumstance that makes a title simulated, nor does it address extraordinary prescription, which the Civil Code treats under different, generally more demanding conditions that do not depend on the same true-and-valid title requirement. Whether a specific document actually qualifies as simulated, as opposed to merely defective in some correctable way, depends on the facts of how it came about, which this article does not itself resolve.
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.
- Reynaldo Telesforo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 122249, January 29, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sotera Paulino Marcelo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 131803, April 14, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →