Short answer. Yes. Against a builder in bad faith the landowner may demand demolition and the restoration of things to their former condition, at the builder's expense. The alternative is to keep the structure and compel the builder to buy the land, or the sower to pay rent. The choice is the landowner's.
What the law says
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed
Civil Code, Article 450 — Landowner's Options Against a Bad-Faith Builder. Read the full provision →
Demolition, and who pays for it
The article gives the landowner the right to demand the demolition of the work and to have things replaced in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed. Both halves matter. The landowner is not obliged to accept a structure he never asked for merely because tearing it down is wasteful, and he does not pay for the tearing down. The builder in bad faith bears the cost of undoing his own work, which is often a larger sum than he expected when he weighed the risk of building.
The second option: make him buy the land
The alternative is to keep the improvement and shift the land instead — the landowner may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. This is a right to compel, not an offer the builder can decline, and it is the option most landowners actually want where the structure is worth having. Note the distinction the article draws: a builder or planter, whose work is permanent, can be made to buy; a sower, whose crop is seasonal, is made to pay rent for the use instead.
The choice belongs to the landowner alone
This is the point builders most often get wrong. The options are the landowner's to exercise, and the builder in bad faith has no say in which is taken and no counter-proposal he can insist on. He cannot offer to buy the land in order to avoid demolition, and he cannot insist on demolishing and salvaging in order to avoid paying the price. Having built knowing the land was not his, he has forfeited any voice in the outcome. A landowner considering his position should therefore decide what he actually wants before negotiating.
Everything turns on bad faith being established
None of these remedies is available against a builder in good faith, who is treated under an entirely different and far more balanced set of rules. So the real work in these cases is proving what the builder knew when he began: the state of the title, the survey and boundary documents, whatever permission he says he had and from whom, and the correspondence in the weeks before construction started. Photographs with dates showing the stage the work had reached when you first objected are worth as much as the title itself.
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.
- Aurora Tensuan, et al. vs. Heirs of Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez, G.R. No. 204992, September 8, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Crispin Aquino and Teresa V. Aquino, herein represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Amador D. Ledesma vs. Spouses Eusebio Aguilar and Josefina V. Aguilar, G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. The Province of Tarlac, G.R. No. 157860, December 1, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Florencia H. Duenas And Daphne Duenas-Montefalcon vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and Elvira Ong Chan; Af Realty Development, Inc. and Zenaida R. Ranullo; Adelaida T. Bernal; and Inocencio Domingo and Penelope Ison of the Register of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 209463, November 29,2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →