Short answer. Under Article 450 of the Civil Code, the landowner has three options: demand demolition or removal of what was built at the intruder's expense; compel the builder or planter to pay for the land; or compel the sower to pay proper rent. The landowner also retains the right to claim damages regardless of which option is chosen.
What the law says
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
Civil Code, Article 450 — Landowner's Options Against a Bad-Faith Builder. Read the full provision →
Three options, all at the landowner's election
Article 450 gives you the choice when a bad-faith intruder builds, plants, or sows on your land. Option one: "demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed." Option two for a builder or planter: compel them to pay you the price of the land — effectively forcing a sale at your terms. Option three for a sower: compel payment of proper rent for the use of the land. The choice belongs to you, not to the intruder.
What bad faith means here
For Article 450 to apply, the builder, planter, or sower must have acted in bad faith. Bad faith means they knew, at the time they started building, planting, or sowing, that the land belonged to someone else and that they had no right or permission to use it. This is distinct from a person who mistakenly believed they were on their own land, or who had a colorable but incorrect claim to the property. If good faith is established, the intruder's rights are governed by different provisions that are more protective of the person who improved the land.
Landowner also retains damages
Whatever option you choose under Article 450, you also have a separate right to damages from the builder, planter, or sower under Article 451 of the Civil Code. If you elect to keep what was built, you get the improvement without paying for it and you may still claim compensation for the harm the intrusion caused. If you choose demolition, the cost falls entirely on the intruder and you may additionally claim damages for the period your land was used without permission.
Practical considerations in choosing your option
The best option depends on the facts. Demolition is often the cleanest remedy when the construction is substandard, encroaches on a portion you need to use, or would be difficult to incorporate into your own plans. Compelling the builder to buy the land is worth considering when the construction has genuinely increased the land's value and you would prefer to realise that value as a sale rather than retaining an improved property. Assessing which route serves you best — including the cost and delay of enforcing each one — is something to work through with a lawyer before taking formal steps.
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.
- Aurora Tensuan, et al. vs. Heirs of Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez, G.R. No. 204992, September 8, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- 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 →
- Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. The Province of Tarlac, G.R. No. 157860, December 1, 2003 — 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 →