Short answer. Yes. Under the Civil Code, if the landlord refuses to pay you one-half the value of useful improvements you made in good faith, you may remove them — even though the property may suffer some damage — as long as you cause no more impairment than necessary.
What the law says
Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.
Civil Code, Article 1678 — Useful Improvements by the Lessee. Read the full provision →
First, the landlord's duty to pay half
Article 1678 addresses useful improvements — things that make the leased property more usable, made in good faith, suitable to the purpose of the lease, and without altering the form or substance of the property. For those, the Code says the landlord, on termination of the lease, shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. So the primary remedy is not removal at all — it is a right to be reimbursed half the current value. Only when the landlord declines to pay that share does the tenant's alternative right, removal, come into play.
The right to remove when reimbursement is refused
The article continues: should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. This is a stronger removal right than the one for decorations. Because the landlord has been given the choice to keep and pay for the improvements and refused, the tenant is allowed to take them back even if pulling them out damages the unit somewhat. The law puts the consequence of that damage on the landlord who would neither pay nor let the tenant recover the value of what he built.
The limit: no more damage than necessary
The permission to damage is not a license to wreck the place. The same provision warns that the tenant shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. Removal must be done in the least destructive way that still recovers the improvement. Gratuitous or spiteful damage beyond what the extraction actually requires is not protected and can make the tenant answerable for it. The tenant's right is to retrieve what he added, not to punish the landlord, so the manner of removal matters as much as the right itself.
Choosing your move at lease-end
In practice, raise reimbursement first: identify the improvements, show they were useful, made in good faith, and did not alter the property's form or substance, and value them as of the lease's end. If the landlord pays half, you leave them and take the money. If he refuses, removal becomes your option, exercised carefully to avoid unnecessary damage. Distinguish these useful improvements from mere ornaments, which follow a stricter no-damage rule. Because whether something qualifies as a useful improvement and how it is valued are fact-specific, review the details before acting.
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.
- Henry L. Sia vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108222, May 5, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bermon Marketing Communication Corporation vs. Spouses Lilia M. Yaco and Nemesio Yaco, G.R. No. 224552, March 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Marguerite J. Lhuillier vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128058, December 19, 2000 — 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 →