Text of the provision
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.
(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
Even a builder, planter, or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preserving the land. Necessary expenses (those that keep the property from deteriorating) are refunded regardless of good or bad faith, because the owner would have had to spend them anyway.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 451 — Landowner's Right to Damages.
- Article 453 — Bad Faith on Both Sides.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Florencia H. Duenas And Daphne Duenas-Montefalcon vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and Elvira Ong Chan; Af Realty Development, Inc. and Zenaida R. Ranullo; Adelaida T. Bernal; and Inocencio Domingo and Penelope Ison of the Register of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 209463, November 29,2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Princess Rachel Development Corporation and Boracay Enclave Corporation vs. Hillview Marketing Corporation, Stefanie Dornau, G.R. No. 222482, June 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pen Development Corporation and Las Brisas Resort Corporation vs. Martinez Leyba, Inc, G.R. No. 211845, August 9, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cornelio M. Isaguirre vs. Felicitas De Lara, G.R. No. 138053, May 31, 2000 — 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.