Short answer. Yes, and more than what they actually collected. A possessor in bad faith must reimburse you for the fruits they received and also for the fruits you, as the legitimate possessor, could have received but did not because they were in possession. Their own recoverable expenses are limited in return.
What the law says
The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of article 546 and in article 443.
Civil Code, Article 549 — Possessor In Bad Faith: Fruits. Read the full provision →
The reimbursement covers more than what was actually collected
Article 549 requires a possessor in bad faith to reimburse two things: the fruits received — whatever income, harvest, rent, or produce the property actually generated while in his possession — and the fruits which the legitimate possessor could have received. That second category means the possessor cannot minimize what he owes you by simply letting the property sit idle, or by mismanaging it so it produced less than it would have under your own care. You are entitled to be made whole for what the property would have yielded to its rightful possessor, not merely for what the wrongful possessor happened to gather.
Why bad faith changes the calculation this sharply
The reason a bad-faith possessor faces this broader obligation is that he knew, or had reason to know, he had no right to the property at all. Someone who occupies and profits from another's land or thing while aware his claim to it is defective is treated far less favorably than a possessor who genuinely, reasonably believed the property was his. That distinction is what drives the harsher accounting this article imposes.
What the possessor still gets back, and what he does not
In exchange, the article limits what the bad-faith possessor can recover for himself: only the expenses described in paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article 443 of the Civil Code — a narrow set compared to what a good-faith possessor could claim. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure improvements are not refunded to him at all under this article, though he may remove the objects those expenses produced if doing so causes the thing no injury, unless you as the lawful possessor prefer to keep them by paying their value at the time you recover possession.
What to document if you are recovering from a bad-faith possessor
Build a record of what the property actually produced during the period of wrongful possession, and — just as important — what it would reasonably have produced under ordinary, competent management, since both figures factor into what you can recover. Keep track of any improvements the possessor made and whether they fall into the narrow categories the law lets him recoup, versus purely decorative additions he is not entitled to be paid for. A lawyer can help you work out the accounting once you have gathered what the property yielded and what was spent on it.
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.
- Corinthian Gardens Association Inc. vs. Sps. Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco, et al, G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Manuel B. Aloria etc. vs. Estrellita B. Clemente, G.R. No. 165644, February 28, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Cerila Gamos, et al. vs. Heirs of Juliano Frando, et al, G.R. No. 149117, December 16, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Enrica Quevada, et al. vs. Pomposa Glorioso, et al, G.R. No. 121270, August 27, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →