1) The basic rule: your rights come from two sources

When a tenant improves a rented house or apartment, reimbursement (or the right to remove what you installed) depends on:

The lease contract (written or verbal)—especially clauses on renovations, repairs, and “improvements become property of the lessor”; and
The Civil Code rules on lease and improvements—which fill the gaps when the contract is silent or unclear.

A landlord may demand that you vacate through lawful grounds (expiration, breach, lawful need, etc.), but that does not automatically cancel a tenant’s lawful claims regarding certain expenses and improvements. The key is what kind of expense/improvement it was, and under what conditions it was done.

2) Start with the lease contract: it can expand or limit reimbursement

A. Clauses that commonly control outcomes

Look for terms on:

Prior written consent for renovations
Who owns improvements at the end of the lease
Reimbursement (full, partial, none)
Offsets (treating improvements as advance rent)
Restoration obligations (“return unit to original condition”)
Security deposit application

B. Are “no reimbursement / improvements become landlord’s property” clauses valid?

Often, yes—because lease is a contract and parties can stipulate terms as long as they are not illegal or contrary to public policy. Many disputes turn on proof of:

the landlord’s knowledge and consent, and/or
a separate agreement that improvements would be reimbursed or credited.

If the landlord expressly approved improvements and induced you to spend (especially for long-term occupancy), that can support stronger reimbursement/damages arguments than where you improved purely by choice against the lease terms.

3) The most important legal distinction: repairs vs improvements

Philippine law treats three categories differently:

A. Necessary repairs / necessary expenses (preservation)

These are expenses needed to keep the property habitable, safe, or from deteriorating (e.g., fixing a leaking roof, broken plumbing line, unsafe wiring that threatens fire, structural leaks causing damage).

Core Civil Code idea: The landlord (lessor) is generally obliged to make necessary repairs to keep the premises suitable for the intended use. If the landlord fails to act after notice, the tenant may, in proper cases, undertake urgent repairs and seek reimbursement, subject to proof and reasonableness.

Practical effect: Necessary repairs are the strongest basis for reimbursement, especially when:

you notified the landlord,
the repair was urgent or necessary, and
the cost is documented and reasonable.

B. Useful improvements (value-adding, functional upgrades)

These are improvements that increase utility or value (e.g., adding built-in cabinets, improving ventilation, installing a water tank/pump, upgrading fixtures to make the place more usable—depending on context).

Civil Code lease principle (commonly cited under Article 1678): When a tenant makes useful improvements in good faith that are suitable to the purpose of the lease and do not fundamentally alter the property, the law gives the landlord, upon termination, a choice structure that typically results in either:

the landlord keeping the improvements by paying a statutory partial reimbursement (commonly described as one-half of the value at the time of lease termination), or
the tenant being allowed to remove the improvements if reimbursement is refused—subject to avoiding unnecessary damage.

Practical effect: You may not automatically recover your full cost. The default statutory remedy is usually partial and value-based, not cost-based.

C. Ornamental / luxury improvements (aesthetic upgrades)

These are primarily decorative (e.g., fancy wall finishes, decorative lighting, non-essential aesthetic changes).

General lease principle: Ornamental improvements are usually not reimbursable by default. The tenant may often remove them if removal can be done without substantial damage and if it does not violate the lease terms.

4) “Good faith” and timing matter—especially once eviction is demanded

A major dividing line is when the improvement was made:

A. Improvements made while the lease is valid and possession is lawful

If you made repairs/improvements during the lease term (or with the landlord’s permission), your claim is generally stronger—especially if the landlord knew, benefited, and did not object.

B. Improvements made after a demand to vacate, or while you are in breach

Once a landlord has made a proper demand to vacate (and especially once you are clearly in default or holding over), improvements made afterward are more likely to be treated skeptically—often as self-serving expenses not chargeable to the landlord, except for truly urgent necessary repairs to prevent damage.

Practical takeaway: Do not keep spending on upgrades once a dispute is active unless it is clearly necessary to prevent damage and you can document notice and urgency.

5) Consent: the single fact that most changes outcomes

A. If the landlord gave prior consent (ideally written)

You can argue:

the landlord authorized the work;
the landlord accepted the benefit; and
reimbursement/credit was contemplated (if provable).

Even if the statutory default only gives partial reimbursement for useful improvements, a clear agreement can override the default (e.g., full reimbursement, rent credits, or buy-out terms).

B. If the landlord did not consent or the lease prohibited alterations

Common outcomes:

the landlord may demand restoration;
reimbursement claims weaken for useful/ornamental upgrades; and
the tenant may be limited to removal (if allowed) rather than payment—especially where the improvement altered the structure.

C. If the landlord knew and did not object (implied consent)

Implied consent arguments can work, but they are evidence-heavy. Helpful proof includes:

landlord messages acknowledging construction,
inspection visits,
acceptance of rent while works were ongoing,
prior similar allowances,
receipts sent to landlord without objection.

6) “Value at termination” vs “cost”: why tenants are often disappointed

Even when reimbursement is available (particularly for useful improvements), the Civil Code approach typically focuses on value at the time the lease ends, not what you spent.

That means:

depreciation matters,
wear-and-tear reduces value,
DIY labor may not be valued the same as paid work,
market appraisal may be needed for bigger claims.

7) Can you refuse to move out until reimbursed?

As a practical matter, withholding possession is risky.

In Philippine eviction practice (ejectment/unlawful detainer), courts focus primarily on who has the better right to physical possession. Even if you have a reimbursement claim, the court may still order you to vacate if the lease has ended or lawful grounds exist—while leaving your monetary claim to:

a counterclaim (if allowed and properly pleaded), and/or
a separate civil action.

Safer framing: treat reimbursement as a money claim and/or removal right, not as a license to indefinitely stay.

8) How reimbursement claims interact with eviction cases (ejectment)

If the landlord sues for eviction (forcible entry/unlawful detainer), these points matter:

A. Demand to vacate is usually required

Landlords typically must make a proper demand before filing unlawful detainer. This demand often becomes the formal starting point of the “eviction timeline.”

B. Raising improvements in court

A tenant may try to raise:

proof of necessary repairs paid by the tenant,
proof of useful improvements and landlord consent,
claims for reimbursement/offset, and
damages for wrongful termination (if applicable).

Whether the eviction court will fully resolve reimbursement can depend on:

jurisdictional limits,
whether the claim is tightly connected to the lease dispute, and
whether the claim requires extensive trial beyond the summary nature of ejectment.

C. Offsetting rent vs reimbursement

Set-off (compensation) is easiest when both obligations are:

due and demandable, and
liquidated (or readily determinable).

Improvement claims are often disputed and value-based, so landlords usually contest offsets unless there is a clear written agreement.

9) Special situation: tenant-built structures (extensions, rooms, small buildings)

When a tenant builds a substantial structure on leased land/space, outcomes depend heavily on the parties’ relationship and documents:

Typical lease treatment: it’s handled as an improvement under lease rules (consent, partial reimbursement or removal, restoration clauses).
Accession reality: structures attached to land generally become part of the property unless there is a right/obligation to remove.
“Builder in good faith” concepts (property law): these doctrines are usually stronger when the builder believed they had ownership rights—not merely a lease. In ordinary landlord–tenant leases, courts tend to apply lease-specific rules rather than treating the tenant as an owner-like builder.

Because structural work is hard to remove without damage, the practical leverage often comes from written agreements (buy-out price, ownership of improvements, or renewal terms), not from default rules alone.

10) Rent Control context (when applicable)

For certain residential units within rent-controlled brackets (which can change by law and location), additional rules may affect:

permitted rent increases,
limited grounds for ejectment in covered situations,
notice requirements.

Rent control laws generally do not create broad automatic reimbursement rights for tenant improvements, but they can affect whether the landlord’s eviction demand is lawful and what damages may arise if it is not.

11) Evidence that makes or breaks improvement reimbursement claims

Because these disputes are proof-driven, the most useful evidence includes:

the lease contract and renewal communications
written consent (emails, chats, letters)
receipts/invoices and proof of payment
before-and-after photos/videos with dates
contractor quotations, scope of work, permits (if any)
messages where the landlord acknowledged the improvements or promised credit
proof the repairs were necessary (leak reports, electrician findings, incident photos)

For high-value disputes, an independent valuation/appraisal (showing present value of improvements) is often more persuasive than raw receipts.

12) Practical roadmap when eviction is demanded

Stop discretionary upgrades; focus only on preventing damage/safety issues.
Assemble proof of consent, necessity, costs, and current value.
Classify each item: necessary repair vs useful improvement vs ornamental.
Make a written demand for reimbursement and/or permission to remove improvements, with an itemized list and attachments.
If eviction is filed, raise properly pleaded claims (as defenses/counterclaims where appropriate) and preserve removal/value arguments.
If removal is your remedy, plan it carefully to avoid allegations of damage beyond what is necessary.

13) Key takeaways

The tenant’s strongest reimbursement footing is usually necessary repairs (especially after notice and landlord inaction) and useful improvements made in good faith with landlord consent.
Default law often grants partial, value-based reimbursement for useful improvements—not full cost—unless the parties agreed otherwise.
Ornamental upgrades are usually not reimbursable by default, though removal may be allowed if it can be done without substantial damage.
A landlord’s lawful eviction demand does not automatically erase a valid reimbursement claim—but reimbursement claims often function as money claims/removal rights, not as a guaranteed right to stay.