Short answer. Yes, but only where the legal question is genuinely doubtful or difficult. Article 526 says a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. An error about clear, settled law will not qualify — good faith rests on honest, reasonable uncertainty, not on ignorance.
What the law says
He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
Civil Code, Article 526 — Possessor in Good Faith and Bad Faith. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.
Civil Code, Article 526 — Possessor in Good Faith and Bad Faith. Read the full provision →
What good faith means for a possessor
Good faith in possession is about awareness of a defect. Article 526 defines it: he is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. The possessor honestly believes his claim is sound. He may be wrong — the title may in fact be flawed — but so long as he does not know of the flaw, the law treats him as a good-faith possessor, with the more favourable rights on fruits and improvements that go with that status.
The rule on mistakes of law
Ordinarily, ignorance of the law excuses no one, which would seem to leave no room for a legal mistake to found good faith. Article 526 carves out a narrow exception: mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Where the law on a point is genuinely unsettled, so that careful people could honestly read it either way, a possessor who took the wrong view is not stripped of good faith for having done so. His belief was reasonable in the face of real legal uncertainty, and the law does not punish him for guessing wrong on a genuine puzzle.
Doubtful or difficult, not merely unknown
The exception is confined to questions that are actually doubtful or difficult. It does not rescue someone who simply did not know a clear and settled rule, nor someone who chose not to find out what an ordinary inquiry would have revealed. The uncertainty must be in the law itself, not in the possessor's diligence. So the test is not "did he make a legal error" but "was the legal question one on which reasonable, informed people could genuinely disagree at the time." A convenient misreading of plain law is bad faith dressed up as confusion.
Why the classification carries weight
Whether a possessor held in good or bad faith decides a great deal that follows: his entitlement to the fruits he gathered, what he can recover for improvements he made, and his exposure for the property's deterioration. Because so much turns on it, the good-faith label is worth scrutinising rather than assuming. A possessor relying on a mistake of law to claim good faith should be able to show the point was truly contestable when he acted — with reference to how unsettled the question then was — not merely assert after the fact that the law confused him.
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.
- Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation, G.R. No. 214546, October 9, 2019 — 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 →
- Dolores Alejo vs. Sps. Ernesto Cortez and Priscilla San Pedro, Sps. Jorge Leonardo and Jacinta Leonardo and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, G.R. No. 206114, June 19, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Housing Authority vs. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, G.R. No. 183543, June 20, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →