Short answer. No, not against the landowner. Civil Code Article 455 makes the landowner's subsidiary liability for your materials inapplicable once he exercises the right granted by Article 450, which includes demanding demolition. Your claim for the materials' value runs against the builder who used them, not the landowner.

What the law says

This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450.

Civil Code, Article 455 — Third Person's Materials. Read the full provision →

The subsidiary liability Article 455 ordinarily creates

Article 455 protects a third person whose materials were used without their bad faith: if the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay. Subsidiary means the landowner is a backstop, not a first target; your primary claim is against whoever built with your materials, and the landowner only steps in if that person cannot pay.

Why demolition under Article 450 removes that backstop

Article 455 draws a direct line to Article 450, which gives a landowner facing a bad-faith builder several options, including that he 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. Article 455 then states plainly: this provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. Choosing demolition under Article 450 takes the landowner's subsidiary liability for your materials off the table entirely.

Where your claim goes instead

With the landowner's subsidiary liability unavailable once demolition has been chosen, your recourse for the value of your materials runs against the builder who used them without paying you, the person Article 450 makes responsible for the cost of demolition and restoring the land in the first place. Article 455 also addresses the reverse scenario, noting that if you have already been paid for your materials by the builder, the builder may then demand the value of the materials and labor from the landowner, which is a separate situation from the one you are asking about.

Why the law shifts the risk this way

The structure of this rule places the risk of the builder's insolvency on the materials owner once the landowner has opted for demolition, rather than spreading that risk to a landowner who never agreed to the building in the first place and has already chosen to have it removed. A landowner facing a bad-faith builder is entitled to be restored to the position he was in before the encroachment, and requiring him to also answer for the value of materials he never wanted used on his land would undercut that remedy. The materials owner's recourse against the builder exists independently of what the landowner decides to do.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.