Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Antipolo Property Ejectment Case Applicable Provisions
Antipolo Property Ejectment Case Applicable Provisions
The Civil Code and Supreme Court pronouncements have defined the rights of the property
owners against builders in bad faith. Bad faith on the part of the builder pertains to building,
planting or sowing made knowingly by one on land not belonging to him and without
authority. Furthermore, the builder is in bad faith if he makes use of the land which he
knows belongs to another. Conversely, to be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential
that a person asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in the
concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition
any flaw which invalidates it [Spouses Espinoza v. Spouses Mayandoc, G.R. No.
211170, 03 July 2017].
“He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built,
planted or sown without right to indemnity.”
“The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may
demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to
replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or
sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower
the proper rent.”
Furthermore, Article 451 of the Civil Code mandates that “in the case of the two preceding
articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower”.
The property owner has 3
alternative rights.
Thus, the following are the three alternative rights of the property owner:
1. To appropriate what has been built, planted or sown in bad faith, without any
obligation to pay any indemnity therefore except for necessary expenses for
the preservation of the land (Art. 452, Civil Code), plus damages; or
2. To ask the removal or demolition of what has been built, etc. at the builder’s,
etc. expense, plus damages; or
3. To compel the builder or planter to pay the price or value of the land, whether
or not the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the
improvements, and the sower, to pay the proper rent, plus damages. [Hector
S. De Leon, Comments and Cases on Property, p. 156, 4th Ed. (2003)]
It bears great emphasis that a builder in bad faith is not entitled to indemnity for his
improvements. As builder in bad faith, he lost the improvement made by him consisting of
the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity (Santos vs.
Mojica, G.R. No.L-25450, 31 January 1969).
A builder in bad faith can lose the building, without indemnity for the necessary or useful
expenses for the building, but he must be indemnified the necessary expenses for the
preservation of the land because, after all, the true owner would have borne such expenses
anyway, even if nothing has been built on the land [Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the
Philippines Annotated, p. 226, Vol. II, 14th Ed. (1999)]. However, as provided in Article 546
of the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith does not have the right of retention over the
premises pending payment.
Remedies Against Someone
Who Built Structures without
Consent
What are the Remedies of an Owner Against
Someone Who Built Structures in his Property
without his Consent?
In cases of builders in bad faith, a property owner can choose to appropriate the
structure, without any obligation to pay any indemnity except for necessary
expenses, plus damages; or ask the removal of the structure at the builder’s, etc.
expense, plus damages; or compel the builder to pay the value of the land, plus
damages.
The Civil Code and Supreme Court pronouncements have defined the rights of the
property owners against builders in bad faith. Bad faith on the part of the builder
pertains to building, planting or sowing made knowingly by one on land not
belonging to him and without authority. Furthermore, the builder is in bad faith if
he makes use of the land which he knows belongs to another. Conversely, to be
deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person asserts title to the land
on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in the concept of owner, and that he
be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it [Spouses Espinoza v. Spouses Mayandoc, G.R. No. 211170, 03 July 2017].
Article 449 of the Civil Code applies to builders in bad faith, to wit:
“He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is
built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.”
Furthermore, Article 451 of the Civil Code mandates that “in the case of the two
preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter
or sower”.
Thus, the following are the three alternative rights of the property owner:
1. To appropriate what has been built, planted or sown in bad faith, without any
obligation to pay any indemnity therefore except for necessary expenses for the
preservation of the land (Art. 452, Civil Code), plus damages; or
2. To ask the removal or demolition of what has been built, etc. at the builder’s, etc.
expense, plus damages; or
3. To compel the builder or planter to pay the price or value of the land, whether or
not the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the improvements,
and the sower, to pay the proper rent, plus damages. [Hector S. De Leon,
Comments and Cases on Property, p. 156, 4th Ed. (2003)]
It bears great emphasis that a builder in bad faith is not entitled to indemnity for
his improvements. As builder in bad faith, he lost the improvement made by him
consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to
indemnity (Santos vs. Mojica, G.R. No.L-25450, 31 January 1969).
A builder in bad faith can lose the building, without indemnity for the necessary or
useful expenses for the building, but he must be indemnified the necessary
expenses for the preservation of the land because, after all, the true owner would
have borne such expenses anyway, even if nothing has been built on the land
[Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, p. 226, Vol. II, 14th Ed.
(1999)]. However, as provided in Article 546 of the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith
does not have the right of retention over the premises pending payment.