A legal article on possession, ownership, use without consent, available causes of action, kinds of damages, proof, defenses, and practical litigation strategy

In Philippine law, the unauthorized use of property can give rise to a wide range of civil claims for damages. The exact remedy depends on the nature of the property, the legal relationship of the parties, and the kind of interference involved. But the basic principle is simple:

No person may use another’s property without lawful authority, and one who does so may be compelled to stop, return the property, account for benefits received, and pay damages.

That unauthorized use may involve:

occupation of land without permission,
continued stay after a lease or permission has ended,
use of a building, house, room, or commercial space without right,
use of a vehicle, equipment, machinery, livestock, or other movable without consent,
extraction of fruits, crops, sand, gravel, timber, minerals, or other resources from another’s land,
commercial or personal exploitation of property without authority,
construction or encroachment,
refusal to vacate despite demand,
or interference that deprives the owner or lawful possessor of use and enjoyment.

In Philippine civil law, such conduct may support claims for:

actual or compensatory damages,
temperate damages,
moral damages in proper cases,
exemplary damages in proper cases,
nominal damages in certain instances,
attorney’s fees and costs of suit,
as well as non-damages remedies such as recovery of possession, ejectment, injunction, reconveyance, accounting, and reasonable compensation for use and occupation.

This article explains the subject comprehensively in the Philippine context.

I. The legal idea behind damages for unauthorized use of property

Property rights in Philippine law include not only the naked title to a thing, but the rights to:

possess,
enjoy,
use,
exclude others,
receive fruits or income,
and recover the property from those who unlawfully withhold or exploit it.

So when a person uses property without authority, the injury is not limited to the thing itself. The injury may include:

loss of possession,
loss of use,
loss of rental value,
deprivation of fruits or profits,
deterioration or destruction,
expenses of recovery,
disturbance of rights,
and, in some cases, emotional or reputational injury linked to bad faith, fraud, or abusive conduct.

The core legal wrong can arise from:

violation of ownership,
violation of possession,
breach of contract,
quasi-delict,
abuse of rights,
bad faith,
or unlawful enrichment.

For that reason, “unauthorized use of property” is not one single cause of action. It is a factual situation that may generate several overlapping claims.

II. What counts as “unauthorized use”

Unauthorized use exists when a person uses property without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, or beyond the limits of any authority originally given.

This includes both complete strangers and persons who originally entered lawfully but later stayed or used the property unlawfully.

Common examples include:

1. Squatting or unlawful occupation of land

A person enters and occupies land without any valid right.

2. Staying after permission is revoked

A relative, caretaker, former partner, employee, or guest continues using the property after consent has been withdrawn.

3. Holdover after lease expiration

A tenant remains in possession after the lease ends and no longer has the right to stay.

4. Use beyond contractual authority

A borrower, lessee, depositary, agent, or contractor uses the property in a manner not authorized by the agreement.

5. Commercial exploitation without authority

Using another’s property for a store, warehouse, parking business, farming operation, online content production, or other revenue activity without consent.

6. Unauthorized extraction

Harvesting crops, collecting fruits, cutting timber, removing gravel or sand, or taking other benefits from the land without right.

7. Encroachment and construction

Building on another’s land, extending structures into it, or using it as access, storage, or workspace without authority.

8. Unauthorized use of movables

Using someone else’s car, motorcycle, machinery, vessel, tools, or equipment without permission.

9. Co-owner or heir exceeding his share

Even a person with some legal connection to the property may commit actionable unauthorized use if he excludes others or appropriates the whole property for himself without basis.

10. Former administrator or caretaker refusing to surrender

A person who once had lawful custody or access continues using the property after authority has ended.

III. Unauthorized use is not always the same as trespass

Philippine law does not treat all property interference under a single label like common-law trespass. Instead, the legal remedy depends on the exact violation.

The unauthorized use may give rise to:

an ejectment case,
an accion publiciana,
an accion reivindicatoria,
a civil action for damages,
a contract action,
an injunction suit,
a claim for accounting or reimbursement,
or a combination of these.

That means the claimant must identify not only the wrongdoing, but also the legal posture of the property dispute.

IV. The most important distinction: ownership versus possession

In property disputes, Philippine law sharply distinguishes between ownership and possession.

A. Ownership

Ownership is the full juridical right over the property.

B. Possession

Possession is actual holding or occupancy, with or without ownership.

This distinction matters because a person may sue over unauthorized use not only as owner, but also as:

lessee,
usufructuary,
administrator,
lawful occupant,
buyer placed in possession,
heir in possession,
or other person with a better right to possess.

So the right to claim damages may belong not only to the titled owner, but also to the person lawfully deprived of use or enjoyment.

V. Main civil causes of action in unauthorized-use cases

Several legal theories may support recovery.

VI. Ejectment: unlawful detainer and forcible entry

When unauthorized use involves possession of real property, the first major remedy is often ejectment.

A. Forcible entry

This applies when the defendant initially took possession by:

force,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy,
or stealth.

B. Unlawful detainer

This applies when the defendant’s possession was originally lawful but later became unlawful, such as:

after lease expiration,
after revocation of permission,
after termination of tolerance,
after refusal to vacate despite demand.

These are summary actions designed mainly to recover material or physical possession.

C. Damages in ejectment

In ejectment cases, the plaintiff may generally claim damages such as:

unpaid rentals,
reasonable compensation for use and occupation,
arrears,
attorney’s fees in proper cases,
and costs.

Where the occupant had no lease but stayed by tolerance, the plaintiff may still recover reasonable compensation for use and occupation, often measured by fair rental value.

VII. Accion publiciana

When dispossession has lasted beyond the period for summary ejectment, the proper remedy may be accion publiciana, which is the plenary action to recover the better right to possess real property.

This remedy is appropriate when the issue is possession, but not necessarily ownership alone.

Damages may be claimed together with the action, including:

fair rental value,
value of use and occupation,
lost fruits,
expenses caused by withholding possession,
and other proven compensatory damages.

VIII. Accion reivindicatoria

Where the plaintiff seeks recovery based on ownership itself, the action may be accion reivindicatoria.

This is the action to recover ownership and possession from one who is wrongfully withholding the property.

In such cases, damages may include:

value of fruits received or that should have been received,
compensation for unlawful use,
deterioration or destruction,
income lost because the owner was kept out of possession,
and related expenses.

Where bad faith is shown, liability may become heavier.

IX. Specific performance or contract-based claims

Sometimes the unauthorized use arises not from a stranger’s invasion, but from the misuse of property in the context of a contract.

Examples include:

a lessee using the property beyond the lease period or beyond allowed purposes;
a borrower using the property contrary to the terms of commodatum;
an agent occupying or exploiting the principal’s property without authority;
a contractor using property outside the agreed scope;
a buyer who took possession but failed to comply with conditions;
a co-developer or manager diverting use of the property.

In these cases, the claimant may sue for:

breach of contract,
rescission or termination where allowed,
damages,
return of property,
rental or use charges,
and injunctive relief.

The advantage of a contract theory is that the scope of authorized use can often be proved directly from the agreement.

X. Quasi-delict and abuse of rights

Unauthorized use may also be actionable under general civil law principles even without a contract.

A. Quasi-delict

If a person, by fault or negligence, causes damage to another in relation to property use, a quasi-delict claim may arise.

This is especially useful where the unauthorized use caused physical damage or loss and no direct contractual tie exists.

B. Abuse of rights

A person who technically claims some right but exercises it in a manner contrary to justice, honesty, or good faith may also incur liability under the Civil Code’s abuse-of-rights provisions.

This can matter where:

a co-owner excludes the others in bad faith;
a relative abuses temporary permission;
a holder of keys or documents manipulates access;
or a person uses legal process as cover for wrongful appropriation.

C. Acts contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy

In serious cases, unauthorized use accompanied by deception, oppression, or malicious conduct may support broader civil liability.

XI. Unjust enrichment and accounting

A person who used another’s property without right may have obtained benefits that, in fairness and law, should not be retained.

This can justify claims for:

accounting of income earned from the property,
return of profits or benefits,
reimbursement of value derived,
and payment for use enjoyed without legal basis.

This is especially important in cases involving:

unauthorized commercial leasing or subleasing,
farming or harvesting on another’s land,
operation of a business on the premises,
use of a warehouse, parking area, or building,
or collection of income belonging to the true owner or lawful possessor.

XII. Types of damages recoverable

Philippine law recognizes several kinds of damages, but not all are available in every case.

1. Actual or compensatory damages

These are the most important damages in unauthorized-use cases. They compensate for proven pecuniary loss.

Examples include:

unpaid rent,
fair rental value of the property,
cost of repairs,
loss of crops or fruits,
loss of income from inability to use or lease the property,
expenses of relocation,
costs to restore the premises,
utility charges wrongfully incurred,
value of property consumed or depleted,
lost profits where legally provable,
and expenses directly caused by the defendant’s wrongful use.

Actual damages must be proved with competent evidence. Courts do not award them on speculation alone.

2. Temperate damages

If the court is convinced that the plaintiff suffered real pecuniary loss but the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be awarded.

This is common where unauthorized use clearly caused damage, but the records are incomplete.

3. Nominal damages

Nominal damages may be awarded where a legal right was violated even if no substantial loss is proved. This is less useful when real financial injury exists, but it remains theoretically available to vindicate rights.

4. Moral damages

Moral damages are not automatic in property cases. As a rule, mere property loss does not by itself justify them.

But moral damages may be awarded when the unauthorized use is attended by:

fraud,
bad faith,
malice,
wanton conduct,
oppressive behavior,
humiliation,
mental anguish,
or other circumstances recognized by law.

Examples may include:

a relative or co-heir maliciously locking out the owner,
a person refusing to vacate while threatening the family,
bad-faith use accompanied by harassment,
or unauthorized occupation that causes serious emotional suffering beyond ordinary inconvenience.

5. Exemplary damages

These may be awarded when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, and where the law allows such additional damages by way of example or correction for the public good.

Exemplary damages require a basis beyond simple unauthorized use. Bad faith matters greatly.

6. Attorney’s fees and costs of suit

These are not automatically recoverable. Philippine law requires a legal and factual basis, such as:

the defendant’s bad faith,
compelled litigation to protect a clearly violated right,
stubborn refusal to satisfy a plainly valid claim,
or circumstances specifically recognized by law.

Where the plaintiff had to sue because the defendant persistently refused to vacate or stop using the property despite demand, attorney’s fees may be awarded in proper cases.

XIII. Fair rental value and reasonable compensation for use and occupation

This is one of the most practical forms of recovery.

Even where there is no formal lease, a person who used another’s property without right may still be compelled to pay the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises.

This is especially common where:

a tolerated occupant overstays,
a former lessee holds over,
a relative refuses to leave,
a possessor in bad faith continues enjoying the premises,
or a structure or activity occupies land without permission.

The amount is usually based on:

comparable rental rates,
prior agreed rent,
location,
size,
market use,
duration of occupation,
and evidence of fair value.

This remedy is often simpler to prove than more ambitious lost-profit claims.

XIV. Fruits, products, and income from the property

Unauthorized use often generates benefits to the wrongdoer. Philippine civil law does not generally allow the wrongdoer to keep those benefits without accountability.

The plaintiff may claim:

natural fruits,
industrial fruits,
civil fruits such as rents,
produce taken from the land,
and income derived from exploitation of the property.

Examples include:

harvests from farmland,
rent collected from unauthorized subtenants,
revenue from events or business conducted on the property,
fees from parking, storage, or warehousing,
or extracted materials such as gravel, timber, or produce.

A possessor or user in bad faith may be liable more extensively for fruits and benefits received or receivable.

XV. Possession in good faith versus bad faith

This is a major dividing line in property law.

A. Good faith

A possessor in good faith believes, upon reasonable grounds, that he has a right to possess or use the property.

B. Bad faith

A possessor in bad faith knows that he lacks the right, or persists after demand, notice, expiration of authority, or awareness of the true legal situation.

Bad faith affects:

liability for fruits,
liability for deterioration,
reimbursement issues,
entitlement to useful or necessary expenses,
award of damages,
and sometimes attorney’s fees and exemplary damages.

A tolerated occupant who was once in good faith may become clearly in bad faith after a valid demand to vacate.

XVI. Unauthorized use by a lessee, borrower, or bailee

Not all property misuse involves total strangers. A person who initially obtained possession lawfully can still become liable when the use exceeds the grant.

A. Lessee

A lessee may be liable if he:

overstays,
subleases without authority,
changes the use in violation of the lease,
damages the premises,
or refuses to return possession.

B. Borrower in commodatum

If a thing loaned for temporary use is used beyond the agreed purpose, withheld beyond the agreed time, or transferred to others without authority, civil liability may arise.

C. Depositary, agent, caretaker, manager

Such persons may become liable if they convert lawful custody into personal use or unauthorized exploitation.

In all these cases, damages may flow from both the unauthorized use and any resulting loss or deterioration.

XVII. Unauthorized use by co-owners and co-heirs

This is one of the most delicate areas.

A co-owner is not automatically a stranger to the property, but that does not mean he may appropriate the whole property for himself.

A co-owner may incur civil liability if he:

excludes the others from possession,
appropriates all fruits or income,
leases the whole property as if sole owner,
occupies the entire premises without accounting,
or refuses partition while enjoying the whole benefit.

The remedies may include:

accounting,
recovery of the other co-owners’ shares in fruits or rentals,
damages,
partition,
and injunctive relief.

Still, these cases are nuanced, because co-ownership itself includes some rights of use. The wrong usually lies not in mere use, but in exclusive appropriation, exclusion, or refusal to account.

XVIII. Unauthorized use by one heir before partition

Before partition, heirs may stand in a co-ownership relation over hereditary property.

If one heir alone takes over the whole property, receives all rents, farms the entire land, or excludes the others, the other heirs may seek:

accounting of income,
delivery of shares,
damages in proper cases,
possession-related relief,
and partition.

Again, not every sole use by one heir immediately creates damages. Much depends on:

whether others were excluded,
whether there was consent,
whether benefits were accounted for,
whether the user acted in bad faith,
and whether actual loss resulted.

XIX. Unauthorized use of movable property

Although land and buildings dominate litigation, movables are also covered.

A person who uses another’s movable without authority may incur civil liability for:

rental value or value of use,
deterioration,
wear and tear beyond normal limits,
repair costs,
loss of business use,
replacement value if lost or destroyed,
and consequential losses if properly proved.

Examples include unauthorized use of:

cars,
motorcycles,
trucks,
farm equipment,
generators,
construction tools,
cameras,
computers,
boats,
or machinery.

Where the use also amounts to a crime, a civil action may arise independently or alongside the criminal case, subject to procedural rules.

XX. Construction, encroachment, and building on another’s land

Unauthorized use often appears as physical encroachment.

This may include:

a wall crossing into another’s lot,
a house partially built on neighboring land,
use of another’s land as access road, drainage area, stockyard, or work area,
or long-term occupation by structures without title.

These disputes can involve highly technical remedies, including:

removal of structures,
injunction,
recovery of possession,
damages,
compensation for use,
and issues concerning builders, planters, and sowers in good faith or bad faith.

The good-faith or bad-faith character of the encroacher matters greatly. A builder in bad faith faces harsher consequences.

XXI. Extraction and depletion of resources

A person who removes value from land without authority may be liable not just for possession, but for depletion of the property itself.

Examples include:

cutting trees,
quarrying gravel or sand,
harvesting coconuts or crops,
removing topsoil,
collecting rents,
taking fish or livestock,
stripping improvements,
or otherwise appropriating the productive capacity of the property.

The plaintiff may claim:

value of the items taken,
unrealized fruits,
restoration costs,
actual damage to land,
and additional damages based on bad faith.

XXII. When demand is important

A prior demand is often extremely important, especially in cases of tolerance, lease expiration, or initially lawful possession.

Demand may serve several functions:

it ends tolerance,
establishes that possession has become unlawful,
supports an ejectment action,
helps show bad faith,
marks the start of liability for reasonable compensation or rentals,
and defeats claims of continued permission.

A written demand is best, though the exact legal need for demand can vary depending on the action and facts.

In practice, a clear demand letter often becomes one of the most important documents in the case.

XXIII. Prescription and timing of the action

Different remedies prescribe differently.

The available action depends on:

whether the plaintiff is suing for summary ejectment,
recovery of possession,
recovery of ownership,
damages based on contract,
damages based on quasi-delict,
or another theory.

Because unauthorized use can continue over time, disputes often arise over:

when the cause of action accrued,
whether possession was initially by tolerance,
when demand was made,
when bad faith began,
and whether the damages are continuing or already fixed.

The claimant must therefore analyze the proper remedy early. Delay can affect not only possession claims, but also the recoverable period for damages.

XXIV. Burden of proof

The plaintiff must prove both the wrongful use and the damages claimed.

The essential matters usually include:

plaintiff’s ownership or better right to possess,
defendant’s actual use or occupation,
lack of authority or termination of authority,
demand where relevant,
duration of wrongful use,
loss suffered,
amount of rentals, fruits, repair costs, or other damages,
and bad faith where moral, exemplary damages, or attorney’s fees are sought.

Courts do not award substantial damages merely because the plaintiff feels wronged. Documentary proof and credible testimony matter.

XXV. Evidence commonly used

Important evidence may include:

title, tax declarations, deeds, contracts, or inheritance documents;
lease agreements, loan agreements, caretaker authorizations, or revocation letters;
demand letters and proof of receipt;
photographs, videos, surveys, and geodetic plans;
barangay records or mediation papers;
utility bills showing occupancy or use;
receipts for repairs, restoration, and expenses;
market rental data or expert testimony on fair value;
financial records showing lost income;
harvest or sales records;
witness testimony from neighbors, workers, tenants, or caretakers;
police blotter or incident reports where relevant.

Without proof of value, courts may reduce actual damages to temperate damages or deny them entirely.

XXVI. Lost profits: possible but difficult

A plaintiff may seek lost profits where unauthorized use prevented profitable use of the property. But such claims are scrutinized closely.

Lost profits must be proved with reasonable certainty, not speculation. Courts are cautious because claimants often exaggerate what they “would have earned.”

A stronger lost-profit claim exists where there is:

an existing lease that was blocked,
an actual buyer or tenant lost because of the wrongful use,
established business history,
production records from prior years,
or market evidence showing measurable loss.

Where proof is weak, courts may award only fair rental value or temperate damages.

XXVII. Moral damages in property disputes: when they are possible

As a rule, not every property case warrants moral damages. But they may be awarded when the unauthorized use is intertwined with bad-faith conduct that causes genuine mental anguish or humiliation.

Examples may include:

fraudulent occupation by a trusted relative,
malicious refusal to vacate the family home,
public humiliation tied to dispossession,
intimidation, threats, or harassment during unlawful occupation,
bad-faith appropriation of a deceased parent’s property causing serious distress.

Still, the claimant must prove more than annoyance. Philippine courts generally require a real legal basis and factual support.

XXVIII. Injunction and damages together

Damages alone may be inadequate if the unauthorized use is ongoing.

The plaintiff may seek:

a temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction,
or permanent injunction,

to stop continued use, construction, extraction, or interference.

This is especially important where:

the property is being continuously exploited,
resources are being depleted,
structures are being built,
access is being blocked,
or the harm cannot be adequately repaired by money alone.

Damages compensate; injunction prevents continuing injury.

XXIX. Relation to criminal liability

Some unauthorized uses also amount to crimes, such as malicious mischief, theft-related conduct, estafa-related conduct, trespass, usurpation-type situations, or unlawful taking of produce or resources.

But the existence of possible criminal liability does not erase civil remedies.

The injured party may often pursue:

a civil action in the criminal case where procedurally proper,
or a separate civil action depending on the legal basis and procedural rules.

The civil claim may include restitution, repair, fair value of use, and damages.

XXX. Defenses commonly raised by defendants

A defendant in an unauthorized-use case may argue:

1. Consent or permission

That the owner or lawful possessor allowed the use.

2. Tolerance

That the occupancy was permitted and never effectively revoked.

3. Lease or contractual right

That use was authorized by agreement.

4. Co-ownership or heirship

That the defendant has a legal share or possessory right.

5. Good faith

That the defendant believed he had a right to use the property.

6. Lack of title in plaintiff

That the plaintiff is not owner or has no better right to possess.

7. Prescription

That the action was filed too late.

8. No damages proven

That the plaintiff failed to prove the amount of loss.

9. Improvements or expenses

That the defendant made useful or necessary improvements and is entitled to reimbursement or retention rights in some circumstances.

10. Set-off or accounting

That the plaintiff also owes the defendant for expenses, taxes, repairs, or shares in the property.

These defenses can significantly affect both liability and amount of damages.

XXXI. Good-faith improvements and reimbursement issues

A defendant who used the property without ultimately prevailing may still claim reimbursement in some situations if he was a possessor or builder in good faith and incurred:

necessary expenses,
useful expenses,
or certain improvements recognized by law.

These issues can complicate the damages analysis. A court may need to weigh:

what the defendant must pay for use,
what the plaintiff must reimburse for necessary expenses,
whether improvements may be retained or removed,
and whether bad faith cancels many of the defendant’s favorable claims.

In other words, a wrongful user may still have some claims if he truly acted in good faith, but a bad-faith user is in a much weaker position.

XXXII. Shared property and family-property disputes

Unauthorized use disputes in the Philippines often arise within families rather than between strangers.

Typical cases involve:

one sibling occupying all inherited property,
one child collecting all rent from a parent’s lot,
a former spouse or partner continuing to occupy a house,
relatives staying “temporarily” for years,
one branch of the family leasing common property without authority.

These cases are hard because the parties often blur ownership, tolerance, family support, and custom. But civil liability still depends on legal rights, not just family history.

A family relationship does not authorize endless free use of another’s property once consent has been withdrawn or the legal basis has ended.

XXXIII. Commercial misuse and business profits

Where the unauthorized use was commercial, courts are more likely to entertain substantial damages if properly proved.

Examples include:

running a store on another’s lot,
using a building as warehouse,
collecting parking fees,
operating a resort or venue,
subleasing without authority,
filming or advertising with the property for profit,
or using industrial land for business operations.

In such cases, the owner may claim:

fair rental value,
profits wrongfully obtained,
accounting,
restoration costs,
and enhanced damages where bad faith is shown.

Commercial misuse tends to make unjust-enrichment arguments stronger.

XXXIV. Unauthorized use by government or public entities

If government action or occupation is involved, different legal doctrines may arise, including issues of expropriation, inverse condemnation-type claims, public use, and state liability. Those cases are more specialized and may involve constitutional and administrative considerations beyond ordinary private unauthorized-use disputes.

Still, the core civil concern remains familiar: use of property without proper authority or compensation may generate claims for just compensation, damages, and related relief.

XXXV. Practical litigation strategy

A claimant in the Philippines should usually clarify these questions first:

Am I suing for possession, ownership, damages, or all of them?
Was the defendant’s possession unlawful from the start, or only after demand?
Is the property real or personal?
Is there a contract, tolerance, co-ownership, or family arrangement involved?
What exact damages can I prove with documents?
Do I need urgent injunctive relief to stop continuing harm?
Am I better off claiming fair rental value than speculative lost profits?
Is the defendant in good faith or obvious bad faith?
Do I need accounting of fruits or income?
Am I within the proper period for the action I intend to file?

A badly chosen action can delay or weaken recovery even where the plaintiff is substantively right.

XXXVI. What courts usually look for most

In practice, Philippine courts tend to focus on a few decisive points:

Does the plaintiff truly have the better right?
Did the defendant remain or use the property without authority?
Was there a clear demand to vacate or stop?
How long did the wrongful use continue?
What actual financial loss can be proved?
Was the defendant in bad faith?
Is the plaintiff seeking a realistic and legally supported amount?

The stronger the documentary trail, the stronger the case.

XXXVII. The most common recoveries

In actual property litigation, the most common successful recoveries are not always the most dramatic. They are often:

possession of the property,
fair rental value or reasonable compensation for use and occupation,
unpaid rentals,
repair costs,
value of fruits or income wrongfully received,
attorney’s fees in cases of bad faith,
and injunctive relief.

Large moral or speculative profit claims are harder to sustain unless the facts are especially strong.

XXXVIII. Final legal conclusion

Under Philippine law, unauthorized use of property can give rise to broad civil liability for damages, but the remedy depends on the exact nature of the property right violated. A person who uses another’s property without lawful authority may be required to:

vacate or return the property,
stop the unauthorized use,
account for fruits, income, or benefits received,
pay fair rental value or reasonable compensation for use and occupation,
reimburse repair or restoration costs,
and answer for actual, temperate, moral, exemplary, or nominal damages where the law and evidence justify them.

The legal framework is not limited to one doctrine. Depending on the case, the plaintiff may proceed through:

ejectment,
accion publiciana,
accion reivindicatoria,
breach of contract,
quasi-delict,
abuse of rights,
accounting,
injunction,
and related claims.

The decisive issues are usually these: right, possession, consent, duration, demand, bad faith, and proof of loss. In many cases, the strongest and most practical claim is not abstract indignation, but a carefully proved demand for recovery of possession plus fair compensation for the period of unauthorized use.

That is the core legal structure of civil claims for damages over unauthorized use of property in the Philippines.