Short answer. Yes, but only one narrow item: the necessary expenses of preserving the land itself. He recovers nothing for the house, the fence or the trees he put up knowing the land was not his, and the owner is not obliged to pay for any of it.
What the law says
The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.
Civil Code, Article 452 — Bad-Faith Builder's Necessary Expenses. Read the full provision →
What the exception actually covers
Article 452 gives the bad-faith builder reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. Read the object of the phrase carefully: it is preservation of the land, not of the improvement. What qualifies is money the owner would have had to spend anyway to keep the property from being lost or deteriorating — the real property tax that would otherwise have gone unpaid, drainage work that stopped a slope from washing away, a retaining wall holding back soil. Spending that makes the land more valuable or more pleasant is a different category, and this article does not reach it.
Everything he built, he built at his own risk
For the structure itself the bad-faith builder recovers nothing. The Code allows the landowner to keep what was built without paying an indemnity for it, or instead to require that it be pulled down and the land restored at the builder's own cost, and to claim damages either way. This is the point of the whole scheme: a person who builds on land he knows is not his cannot manufacture a claim against the owner by spending enough money. Nor does he have a right to stay on the land, or to hold it, until he is paid.
Why a wrongdoer is reimbursed for anything
The narrow exception is not a reward for the builder; it exists so the owner is not enriched at his expense. Preservation expenses are costs the owner was going to bear whoever was standing on the property, and he gets the land back in a condition he did not pay to maintain. That reasoning also fixes the limits. If the expense benefited the builder's own project rather than the land, or if the land would have been in the same condition without it, the claim falls outside the article and the builder is back to recovering nothing at all.
Before you treat anyone as a builder in bad faith
Bad faith is a conclusion someone has to prove, not a label to attach to an occupant you want removed. It usually rests on documents — a title, a survey, a demand letter, a lease that expired — showing the builder knew or could not have failed to know the land was another's. Look just as hard at your own side of the record. Where the owner knew the work was going on and said nothing while it was finished, the analysis shifts sharply against him, so the dates on which you learned and on which you objected are worth pinning down before anything is filed.
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 Crispin Aquino and Teresa V. Aquino, herein represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Amador D. Ledesma vs. Spouses Eusebio Aguilar and Josefina V. Aguilar, G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Florencia H. Duenas And Daphne Duenas-Montefalcon vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and Elvira Ong Chan; Af Realty Development, Inc. and Zenaida R. Ranullo; Adelaida T. Bernal; and Inocencio Domingo and Penelope Ison of the Register of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 209463, November 29,2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Princess Rachel Development Corporation and Boracay Enclave Corporation vs. Hillview Marketing Corporation, Stefanie Dornau, G.R. No. 222482, June 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pen Development Corporation and Las Brisas Resort Corporation vs. Martinez Leyba, Inc, G.R. No. 211845, August 9, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →