Text of the provision
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor. Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
(453a)
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
Necessary expenses are refunded to every possessor, but only the good-faith possessor may retain the thing until reimbursed. Useful expenses are refunded only to the good-faith possessor, likewise with a right of retention, and the winning party may choose to pay either the amount spent or the increase in value. A cornerstone of the right of retention.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 545 — Pending Fruits When Good Faith Ceases.
Cases citing this article
- Onesimo Agapito vs. Marilyn F. Agapito, G.R. No. 255157, July 4, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Henry L. Sia vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108222, May 5, 1997 — 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 →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Eriberto Ontiveros, G.R. No. 241507, December 7,2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leviste Management System, Inc,. vs. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc., and Vivian Y. Locsin and Pitong Marcorde/ Legaspi Toweres 200, Inc. vs. Leviste Management System, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 199353 / G.R. No. 199389, April 4, 2018 — 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.