Short answer. Yes. Article 1168 of the Civil Code states that when an obligation consists in not doing something and the obligor does it anyway, the forbidden act shall be undone at the obligor's expense. The party who violated the prohibition bears the cost of reversal.
What the law says
When the obligation consists in not doing, and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone at his expense.
Civil Code, Article 1168 — Obligations Not to Do. Read the full provision →
What an obligation not to do means
Obligations come in three basic forms: to give, to do, and not to do. An obligation not to do — like an agreement not to build a structure, not to operate a certain type of business, or not to plant within a set distance — restricts a party from taking a particular action. Article 1168 of the Civil Code addresses what happens when someone bound by such an obligation violates it: the forbidden act must be undone at the obligor's expense. The obligor is the one who had the duty not to act and chose to act anyway.
The obligee's right to demolition or reversal
The practical remedy Article 1168 provides is that whatever was done in violation of the prohibition can be reversed, and the person who violated the obligation pays for the reversal. If the obligor built a fence that the contract forbade, the fence can be torn down. If they planted trees in a restricted zone, the trees can be removed. The obligee — the party who benefited from the prohibition — can seek a court order requiring demolition or removal, and the obligor must bear all costs of that remedy.
Proving the obligation and the breach
To succeed in a claim under Article 1168, you need to establish: that there was an obligation not to do the specific act; that the obligor did that act; and that the act was forbidden under the obligation. The source of the obligation — a deed of restriction, a contract clause, an easement, or another legal instrument — must be clearly shown. The breach is typically straightforward to prove once the obligation is established: the thing that was forbidden exists. Keep a copy of the agreement or document that contains the prohibition, and document the violation when you discover it.
Damages alongside demolition
Article 1168 provides for the undoing of the forbidden act but does not preclude additional claims for damages caused by the violation. If the unauthorized fence blocked your access, reduced the value of your property, or caused other losses during the time it stood, those harms may also be compensable. The demolition remedy restores the physical situation; a damages claim addresses the consequential losses. Whether both are worth pursuing depends on what the violation actually cost you, and a lawyer can help you assess whether to include a damages component alongside the request for demolition.
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.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Camarines Sur Teachers and Employees Association, Inc., represented by its President, Dr. Antonio A, G.R. No. 199666, October 7, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Eliseo Fajardo, Jr. and Marissa Fajardo vs. Freedom To Build, Inc, G.R. No. 134692, August 1, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Juan Perez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Luis Crisostomo, et al, G.R. No. 107737, October 1, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →