Must I pay my neighbor for temporarily using his land for scaffolding while I repair my building?

The neighbor must allow it, but only when truly indispensable

Article 656 covers a specific, practical problem: sometimes finishing work on a building requires temporary access to the neighboring lot, whether to carry materials through the estate of another or to raise therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work. The article applies where this is indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or beautification of a building. If it is genuinely necessary, not merely convenient, the neighbor shall be obliged to permit the act — he cannot simply refuse access.

Payment comes before, not after

The obligation to permit access is conditioned on payment. The article specifies the neighbor must permit the work after receiving payment of the proper indemnity for the damage caused him. This puts the indemnity requirement ahead of the access itself in the article's own sequence — the neighbor's cooperation is tied to being compensated first for whatever damage the temporary use of his property causes, rather than being left to seek payment afterward through a separate claim.

What the indemnity is meant to cover

The statute frames the payment as compensation for the damage caused him by the temporary occupation — this is not a fee for granting permission in the abstract, but indemnity tied to the actual harm or inconvenience the access causes, such as disruption to his use of that portion of his land, or any physical damage the scaffolding or material transport might cause. The amount is not fixed by the article itself; it depends on what damage actually results from the specific work being done. The neighbor's obligation to permit the work does not mean he simply absorbs whatever inconvenience results — the indemnity requirement exists precisely so the cost of that inconvenience lands on the person doing the building work, not on the neighbor who happens to sit next door.

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.

• Ama Land, Inc. vs. Wack Wack Residents' Association, Inc, G.R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Fausto R. Preysler, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 158141, July 11, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 656 — Temporary Passage for Building Works