Short answer. No. Article 2254 of the Civil Code is explicit: no vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions that are against the law or that infringe upon the rights of others. Illegality at the root of an acquisition prevents any protected legal right from forming, regardless of how long the situation has persisted.
What the law says
No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others.
Civil Code, Article 2254 — No Vested Right From Wrong. Read the full provision →
What a 'vested right' means and why it matters
A vested right is a legally protected entitlement that the State cannot arbitrarily take away — it has crystallised in the holder's favour through lawful acquisition. Article 2254 draws the boundary: vested rights arise only from lawful acts. Where the acquisition is tainted by illegality — fraud, coercion, theft, violation of another's rights — the law refuses to recognise a protected interest in what was obtained. A person cannot invoke the protection of property rights to hold on to something they were never legally entitled to take.
Two separate triggers for the rule
Article 2254 applies in two distinct situations. The first is where the act or omission is against the law — acquiring property through a void contract, obtaining a permit through misrepresentation, or any other transaction the law itself prohibits. The second is where the act or omission infringes upon the rights of others — not necessarily illegal under a specific statute, but wrongful because it takes something the other person was entitled to. Both situations prevent vested rights from forming.
Practical applications
This principle appears often when someone argues that long possession or reliance on an unlawfully obtained benefit should be protected. A contractor who won a government contract through bribery cannot later claim a vested right to the contract proceeds. A builder who encroached on neighbouring land without authority cannot claim property rights over the encroachment by reason of the structures already built. The wrongfulness at the foundation of the acquisition prevents the right from vesting, no matter how entrenched the situation appears.
Limits and nuances
Article 2254 addresses the person who committed the unlawful act. It is a separate question what happens to third parties who subsequently acquired an interest in good faith and for value — their position may be protected by other provisions governing good-faith purchasers and innocent third parties. If you are on the receiving end of this argument — someone is challenging your acquisition as illegally sourced — the full analysis will depend on the specific transaction, who was involved, and whether any good-faith acquisition rules apply. Legal advice on the particular facts is necessary.
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.
- Energy Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203367, March 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team Sual Corporation (formerly Mirant Sual Corporation), G.R. No. 194105, February 5, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation/Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 187485 / G.R. No. 196113 / G.R. No. 197156, February 12, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commission on Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117982, February 3, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →