Text of the provision
Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of article 546 and in article 443. The expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they may have at the time he enters into possession.
(445a)
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
A possessor in bad faith must reimburse the fruits he received and those the rightful possessor could have received, and may recover only the expenses referred to in paragraph 1 of article 546 and in article 443. Spending on pure luxury or mere pleasure is never refunded, though he may remove those objects if the thing is not injured — unless the lawful possessor prefers to keep them by paying their value at the time he takes possession.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 521 — Goodwill As Property.
- Article 550 — Costs Of Litigation Borne.
Cases citing this article
- Corinthian Gardens Association Inc. vs. Sps. Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco, et al, G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Manuel B. Aloria etc. vs. Estrellita B. Clemente, G.R. No. 165644, February 28, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Cerila Gamos, et al. vs. Heirs of Juliano Frando, et al, G.R. No. 149117, December 16, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Enrica Quevada, et al. vs. Pomposa Glorioso, et al, G.R. No. 121270, August 27, 1998 — 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.