Short answer. Yes, subject to two conditions. Article 549 does not refund a bad-faith possessor's spending on pure-luxury or ornamental improvements, but it lets him remove the objects — provided the property suffers no injury, and the lawful possessor does not choose to keep them by paying their value at the time he takes possession.
What the law says
The expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they may have at the time he enters into possession.
Civil Code, Article 549 — Possessor In Bad Faith: Fruits. Read the full provision →
No refund, but a right to remove
A possessor in bad faith gets no money back for luxuries, yet he is not simply stripped of what he added. Article 549 provides that the expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred. Ornamental or pleasure improvements — decorative fixtures, embellishments that answer to taste rather than need — earn him no reimbursement. What the law gives instead is the option to take the objects away with him, so the owner does not simply inherit them for free.
The two conditions on removal
The right to remove is fenced by two conditions in the same sentence. First, removal is allowed only provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby: if prising the object loose would damage the property, the possessor cannot take it. Second, it yields to the lawful possessor's choice — the possessor in bad faith may remove the objects only where the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them. So removal is a default that operates unless it would harm the property or unless the person taking the property back elects to keep the improvements instead.
The lawful possessor's option to keep them
The owner or lawful possessor holds a counter-right that overrides removal. He may retain the luxury objects by paying the value they may have at the time he enters into possession. The valuation date matters: it is not what the possessor originally spent, nor the value at some later point, but the worth of the objects when the lawful possessor takes over. If he exercises this option and pays that value, the improvements stay with the property. The choice is his, which means a bad-faith possessor cannot count on carrying his embellishments away if the lawful possessor would rather buy them in.
Luxury is only part of the Article 549 picture
Removal of luxuries sits within a harsher overall treatment of bad-faith possession. Under the same article, the possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received — he accounts not only for what he took but for what a rightful possessor would have gathered. His recoverable outlays are confined to a narrow set of expenses, and luxury spending is expressly excluded from refund. So the removal right is a limited concession inside a regime that otherwise runs firmly against the bad-faith possessor, and it should be read against that backdrop rather than as a general entitlement.
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 →