Short answer. No. Article 536 bars anyone from acquiring possession through force or intimidation as long as you, the objecting possessor, oppose it. Even someone who believes they have a right to the property must go to court to enforce it, not seize it by force while you object.
What the law says
In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto.
Civil Code, Article 536 — No Possession by Force. Read the full provision →
What the law says
He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
Civil Code, Article 536 — No Possession by Force. Read the full provision →
Your objection is what blocks the seizure from counting
Article 536 makes your continuing objection the decisive fact. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. The word in no case leaves no exception once you object: force or intimidation simply does not produce legal possession while you continue to resist the taking. The person who seized the property physically holds it, but the law does not recognize that physical control as possession in the legal sense your objection has kept alive.
Even a real right does not license self-help by force
The article does not depend on whether the person seizing your property might actually have some legitimate claim to it. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. Believing you are entitled to something is never a license to simply take it by force when the holder refuses to hand it over — the law channels that dispute into court, not into whoever is stronger or more intimidating.
What this means for you as the objecting possessor
Because Article 536 protects your objection specifically, continuing to assert that objection matters — silence or acquiescence after the fact can change how a later dispute is read. Your practical position is that the seizure did not legally dispossess you of the right the law protects, even though someone else has physically taken hold of the property. Pursuing recovery through the courts remains available precisely because the statute directs disputes over holding a thing away from force and toward judicial process.
What this article does not decide
Article 536 addresses how possession is or is not legally acquired when force or intimidation is used against an objecting possessor — it does not itself resolve who ultimately has the better right to own or possess the property long-term. That underlying question, and whatever remedy fits your specific situation, is what a court proceeding is meant to sort out once you invoke it, consistent with the article's own instruction that the aid of the competent court is the proper route.
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.
- Reynaldo Villafuerte, et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 134239, May 26, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Perlita Mabalo vs. Heirs of Roman Babuyo, represented by Virgilio L. Babuyo, G.R. No. 238468, July 6, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Adolfo T. Fernandez, Sr. and Lourdes Fernandez vs. Spouses Martines Co and Erlinda S. Co, G.R. No. 167390, July 26, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cesar A. Altarejos, et al. vs. Hon. Herbert Bautista, G.R. No. 247009, February 26, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →