Short answer. Yes. Article 545 lets the owner, if he wishes, give the good-faith possessor the right to finish cultivating and gathering the growing crops, in place of paying him his share of the cultivation expenses and net harvest. But a possessor who refuses this offer loses any other right to be indemnified.
What the law says
If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of the possession.
Civil Code, Article 545 — Pending Fruits When Good Faith Ceases. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other manner.
Civil Code, Article 545 — Pending Fruits When Good Faith Ceases. Read the full provision →
The default when good faith ends mid-crop
When a good-faith possessor's belief in his claim ends while crops are still in the ground, the Code does not simply hand the standing harvest to the owner. Article 545 provides that if at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of the possession. The costs are split on the same basis. The possessor put labour and money into a crop not yet gathered, and the default is a proportional sharing of both the expense and the yield.
The owner's alternative: let him finish
Rather than run that accounting, the owner is given a cleaner option. He may, should he so desire, give the possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for the possessor's share of the cultivation expenses and the net proceeds. Instead of computing and paying the possessor his proportional entitlement, the owner simply lets him see the crop through to harvest and take it. It is the owner's choice to make, and it suits a case where letting the possessor complete the harvest is simpler than valuing and dividing an unfinished one.
Refusing the concession is costly
The option comes with a sharp consequence for the possessor. The article states that the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other manner. If the owner offers the chance to finish and gather, and the possessor turns it down, he does not fall back on his proportional claim — he loses the indemnity altogether. The words "for any reason whatever" leave no room to argue that a particular refusal was justified. Once the concession is offered, declining it forfeits the compensation the article would otherwise have secured.
Weigh the offer before rejecting it
For a possessor, the practical lesson is that an offer to finish the harvest is not one to wave away lightly, because refusing it leaves him with nothing rather than with his share. He should weigh what completing the cultivation would actually yield against the proportional indemnity he is giving up by refusing. For the owner, the option is a tool to avoid a contested valuation of a growing crop. Either way, the decision turns on the state and value of the crop at the moment good faith ceased, which is the fact both sides should pin down first.
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.
- Moreto Mirallosa and all persons claiming rights and interest under him vs. Carmel Development, Inc, G.R. No. 194538, November 27, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →