Text of the provision
Art. 1678. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.
(n)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
For useful improvements made in good faith, the lessor on termination pays the lessee one-half their value; if he refuses, the lessee may remove them (avoiding undue damage). Ornamental objects are not reimbursed but may be removed. The default rule for tenant improvements.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1677 — Buyer in a Pacto de Retro Sale.
- Article 1679 — Place and Time of Rent Payment.
Cases citing this article
- Henry L. Sia vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108222, May 5, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bermon Marketing Communication Corporation vs. Spouses Lilia M. Yaco and Nemesio Yaco, G.R. No. 224552, March 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Marguerite J. Lhuillier vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128058, December 19, 2000 — 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 →
- Sulo sa Nayon, Inc. and/or Philippine Village Hotel, Inc. et al. vs. Nayong Filipino Foundation, G.R. No. 170923, January 20, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.