Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code gives the lessee a direct action against an intruder who commits a mere act of trespass. You do not have to wait for the landlord — a trespass that involves no claim of right is something the tenant can pursue against the intruder himself.
What the law says
The lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. There is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatever.
Civil Code, Article 1664 — Trespass by a Third Person. Read the full provision →
The tenant's direct action
Article 1664 answers the question head-on. It says the lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. Two things follow. The landlord is not responsible for a stranger's trespass, so a tenant cannot demand that the landlord fix it or compensate for it. But the tenant is not left helpless either — the law hands him his own right to go after the intruder directly, without needing the owner to act on his behalf.
What counts as 'mere trespass'
The article defines the term precisely: there is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatever. This is the dividing line. A mere trespasser is someone who simply intrudes — walks in, occupies, or disturbs — without asserting any legal claim to the property. That is the situation where the tenant's direct action and the landlord's non-responsibility apply. It is different from an intruder who asserts a right, such as a person claiming to be the true owner or to hold a lease of his own; that kind of disturbance raises questions of title and is handled differently.
Why the distinction matters
The reason the law separates the two is that they call for different responses. A mere factual intrusion, with no claim of right, is a disturbance of the tenant's possession that the tenant is well placed to repel himself. But where the third person asserts a legal right that clashes with the lease, the landlord's obligation to guarantee the tenant's peaceful enjoyment can come into play, because the challenge goes to the very right the landlord leased out. Classifying the disturbance correctly therefore decides both who is responsible and what remedy fits.
If someone intrudes on your rented property
Establish first whether the intruder is claiming any right or is simply trespassing. If it is a mere trespass — no claim of right — you as tenant may act directly against him to protect your possession, and you should not expect the landlord to be answerable for it. If instead the person asserts ownership or some other legal right, involve the landlord, because a disturbance of that nature engages his duty differently. Since the outcome hinges on whether a right is being claimed, document what the intruder actually said and did, and have the situation reviewed.
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.
- G.Q. Garments, Inc. vs. Angel Miranda, et al, G.R. No. 161722, July 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Chua Tee Dee, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 135721, May 27, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →