Short answer. Yes, but only if two conditions are met. Under Article 547, a good-faith possessor may remove useful improvements when the property returns to its owner — provided the removal does not damage the principal thing, and provided the recovering owner has not exercised the option to pay for the improvement instead of allowing removal.
What the law says
If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to the principal thing, the possessor in good faith may remove them, unless the person who recovers the possession exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the preceding article.
Civil Code, Article 547 — Removing Useful Improvements. Read the full provision →
Useful improvements and the right to remove
A useful improvement is one that increases the value or productivity of the property — additions that go beyond mere maintenance but do not qualify as luxury or ornamentation. A fence, an additional room, an irrigation system, or a drainage improvement would typically fall in this category. Article 547 gives the good-faith possessor a right to take these improvements back when possession ends, reflecting the principle that the possessor should not be forced to leave behind improvements they paid for when the true owner chooses not to reimburse.
The no-damage condition
The right to remove useful improvements is subject to a critical physical constraint: removal must not damage the principal thing. If the improvement is so integrated into the property that detaching it would injure the structure, the land, or the main property itself, removal is not permitted. A cement extension to a house that would require breaking walls to remove, or a piping system woven through a building, cannot be taken away if doing so damages what remains. In that case, the improvement stays, and the question of compensation is governed by separate provisions on reimbursement.
The owner's option to pay and keep
Even when removal would not damage the property, the person who recovers possession can block the removal by exercising their option to pay for the improvement. Article 547 references this option from the preceding article: the owner who regains the property may choose to reimburse the value of the useful improvement rather than allow the possessor to take it. If the owner makes that choice, the possessor receives money instead of the physical improvement. The possessor cannot insist on removal once the owner elects to pay the reimbursement.
What good faith requires
These protections apply specifically to a possessor in good faith — one who genuinely believed they had a legitimate right to the property when they made the improvements. A bad-faith possessor who knew the property was not theirs has no right to remove improvements and receives no reimbursement for them. The distinction matters because good faith is presumed — anyone disputing the good-faith character of possession must affirmatively demonstrate that the possessor knew, or had reason to know, that their possession was defective before the improvements were made.