Short answer. You do, as landowner. Whatever is built, planted or sown on your land, and the improvements or repairs made on it, belong to you. But ownership is only the starting point: the following articles decide what you must pay, or what the builder may remove, depending on good or bad faith.

What the law says

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.

Civil Code, Article 445 — Accession With Respect to Immovables. Read the full provision →

The land is the principal thing

Article 445 states the basic rule of accession over immovables: the land is treated as the principal, and whatever is attached to it follows. A house someone else erected on your lot, a stand of fruit trees another person planted, a fence, a concrete drive, repairs made to an existing structure — all of it accedes to the land and becomes yours by operation of law, without any deed of transfer. This is why a person who builds on land he does not own cannot simply declare the house his and sell it. It is also why title to the land, not receipts for the construction, is the document that governs the fight.

The words that carry all the weight: 'subject to the following articles'

Ownership does not mean a free building. The Civil Code immediately qualifies the rule. Where the person who built, planted or sowed acted in good faith — genuinely believing the land was his, or that he had a right to build — the landowner does not simply keep the improvement for nothing. The Code gives the landowner an option, exercised on terms the Code itself fixes, and gives the builder rights of his own in the meantime. Where the builder acted in bad faith, knowing the land belonged to another, the balance shifts sharply against him. Article 449 and the articles around it set out these consequences, and they are where most real disputes are actually decided.

Good faith is a question of fact, not of feeling

Good faith turns on what the builder knew or should have known when construction began: whether there was a title, a survey, a permit, a tolerated occupation, a family arrangement, or a boundary that everyone had misread for decades. A person who was merely allowed to stay on the land out of generosity is in a different position from one who believed he owned it. Building after receiving a demand to stop is difficult to reconcile with good faith. Because the money consequences differ so much, this single issue is usually where the case is won or lost, and it is decided on evidence, not on assertion.

If someone has built on your land

Do not demolish anything on your own initiative. Gather your title, the approved survey and tax declarations, and put your objection in writing with a date, since silence over years can itself become evidence. Establish when construction began and what the builder was told. Then get advice before choosing a remedy, because the option the Code gives a landowner must be exercised properly and can be lost by conduct. This page is general legal information about the rule of accession; the amounts payable and the remedy available in any particular case depend on facts a lawyer needs to see.

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.