Builder in bad faith disentitled to reimbursement

Dear Benildo,

The following provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines squarely govern your situation,

“Article 449. 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.

“Article 450. 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.

“Article 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.”

Ruben is a builder in bad faith the moment he received the demand letter regarding the encroachment. He cannot, therefore, claim the expenses for the construction of his building. This finds support in the case of

(GR 211845, Aug. 9, 2017), where the Supreme Court through Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo stated that:

“The right of the owner of the land to recover damages from a builder in bad faith is clearly provided for in Article 451 of the Civil Code. Although said Article 451 does not elaborate on the basis for damages, the Court perceives that it should reasonably correspond with the value of the properties lost or destroyed as a result of the occupation in bad faith, as well as the fruits (natural, industrial or civil) from those properties that the owner of the land reasonably expected to obtain. x x x

“For their part, petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses. Indeed, under Article 452 of the Civil Code, the builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. However, in this case, respondent’s lands were not preserved: petitioners’ construction and use thereof in fact caused damage, which must be undone or simply endured by respondent by force of law and circumstance. Respondent did not in any way benefit from petitioners’ occupation of its lands.”

Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, Ruben’s claim for the reimbursement of the construction of his building has no legal basis. A builder in bad faith like him is only entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses for the preservation of your land, which he cannot invoke since the construction did not result in the preservation of your land but instead had caused damage to it.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.