Short answer. Yes. Article 453 provides that a landowner is understood to have acted in bad faith whenever the building, planting, or sowing was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. Watching silently while someone builds on your land, without objecting, counts as bad faith.
What the law says
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.
Civil Code, Article 453 — Bad Faith on Both Sides. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
Civil Code, Article 453 — Bad Faith on Both Sides. Read the full provision →
Knowledge plus silence equals bad faith
Article 453 defines the landowner's bad faith in specific, concrete terms rather than leaving it to a vague standard. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. If you saw the building work happening on your land and did not object to it, that combination — knowledge plus the absence of opposition — is treated by the statute as bad faith on your part, regardless of what your private, unspoken intentions were.
Why silence is not treated as neutral
A landowner might think that simply not saying anything is a passive, neutral stance that carries no legal consequence, but this article treats it differently once knowledge of the building is established. Once you know someone is building on your land, the law expects you to actually object if you disagree, and staying silent while it happens is read as effectively tolerating it, which the statute equates with bad faith.
What it means when both sides acted in bad faith
The consequence of your bad faith combining with the builder's own bad faith is spelled out directly. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. Rather than punishing both parties for their respective bad faith, the article essentially cancels the bad faith out, treating the situation as if it had all been done in good faith on both sides.
What this means for a landowner in this position
If you knew about the construction and did not oppose it, you cannot later claim you were an innocent, uninvolved landowner and demand the harsher remedies available against a builder acting in bad faith alone. Your own silence brings you within this article's mutual-bad-faith rule, which shifts the outcome toward the more balanced treatment the law applies when both parties are considered to have acted in good faith.
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.
- Onesimo Agapito vs. Marilyn F. Agapito, G.R. No. 255157, July 4, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pen Development Corporation and Las Brisas Resort Corporation vs. Martinez Leyba, Inc, G.R. No. 211845, August 9, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Erlinda Dinglasan Delos Santos and her daughters, namely, Virginia, Aurea, and Bingbing all surnamed Delos Santos vs. Alberto Abejon and the estate of Teresita Dinglasan Abejon, G.R. No. 215820, March 20, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez, et al./Generoso Tulagan, et al. vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez, et al./Reynaldo V. Maniwang vs. Vicente C. Sanchez and Felisa Garcia Yap, G.R. No. 179518 / G.R. No. 179835 / G.R. No. 179954, November 19, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →