Short answer. No. Under Article 448, a good-faith builder cannot be compelled to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building. In that case, the builder instead pays reasonable rent to the landowner — unless the landowner chooses to appropriate the building by paying the proper indemnity.
What the law says
the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity.
Civil Code, Article 448 — Builder, Planter, Sower in Good Faith. Read the full provision →
The landowner's two primary options
Article 448 gives the landowner the first choice. When someone builds on another's land in good faith, the landowner may: (1) appropriate the building as their own by paying the builder the proper indemnity for the construction, or (2) require the builder to buy the land at its value. The landowner cannot simply demand that the builder remove the structure — that option belongs to bad-faith scenarios, not good-faith ones. The choice of which path to take rests with the landowner, not the builder.
The protection when the land is much more valuable
The statute creates an important limitation on the second option. The builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. This protection exists because it would be unreasonable to force a good-faith builder — who erected a modest house on a valuable piece of land without knowing it belonged to another — to purchase that land at a price far beyond what the improvement is worth. The law balances the landowner's property rights against the practical consequences for the innocent builder.
The rent alternative and how it works
When the builder cannot be forced to buy, the fallback is reasonable rent. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. The builder pays rent to the landowner for the continued occupation of the land. The rent keeps the landowner economically whole and preserves the builder's ability to use the structure they built in good faith. If the parties cannot agree on the rent amount, a court will set it based on the facts.
What 'considerably more' means in practice
The statute does not define the precise ratio at which land value becomes 'considerably more' than the building value — that is a factual question courts assess case by case. A small house on a prime commercial lot, or a modest residential structure on land with high market value due to location, would typically satisfy the standard. The builder who wants to invoke this protection should be prepared to present valuations of both the land and the building to show that the disproportion is significant enough to trigger the rent alternative rather than compelled purchase.
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.
- Ophelia L. Tuatis vs. Spouses Eliseo Escol and Visminda Escol, et al, G.R. No. 175399, October 27, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leviste Management System, Inc,. vs. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc., and Vivian Y. Locsin and Pitong Marcorde/ Legaspi Toweres 200, Inc. vs. Leviste Management System, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 199353 / G.R. No. 199389, April 4, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Communities Cagayan, Inc. vs. Sps. Arsenio (deceased) and Angeles Nanol, et al, G.R. No. 176791, November 14, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Onesimo Agapito vs. Marilyn F. Agapito, G.R. No. 255157, July 4, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →