Rights to Plants and Trees on Encroached Land in Philippines

Rights to Plants and Trees on Encroached Land in the Philippines

Comprehensive legal survey as of July 26 2025


1  | Why the Issue Matters

In a country where land parcels are often small and boundaries imperfectly marked, neighbors frequently discover that trees or crops have been planted partly—or wholly—on land that legally belongs to someone else. The problem sits at the crossroads of three bodies of law:

  • Property law (Civil Code rules on ownership, possession, accession, and encroachment)
  • Forestry and environmental law (recognising that most timber is res communis of the State)
  • Special statutes on agrarian reform, indigenous domains, and urban land policy

Understanding how these strands weave together is essential whether you are the titled owner, the encroaching planter, or a third party such as an LGU or DENR field officer.


2  | Core Civil‑Code Concepts

2.1 Ownership and Possession

  • Article 428 recognizes the jus utendi, fruendi et abutendi of an owner: to use, enjoy fruits, and even destroy the thing—subject to police‑power limits.
  • Articles 526‑527 define possessor in good faith (believing he has title) versus bad faith (knowledge of another’s better right).

2.2 Accession (Articles 440 ff.)

Accession is the mode by which the owner of a principal thing acquires that which is united to or produced by it. For plants & trees, two sub‑titles matter:

Kind of Accession Articles Typical example
Discrete (fruits) 442‑444 Mango harvest
Industrial (building, planting, sowing) 445‑456 Mahogany trees or corn rows planted by another

2.3 Encroachment Provisions (Articles 448 – 456)

These govern the clash between the landowner (l) and the encroaching builder/planter/sower (p). The rules pivot on good faith:

Scenario Landowner’s options Encroacher’s rights/obligations
p in good faith (Art 448) (a) Appropriate the planting after paying its value + damages or (b) compel p to buy the land (land vs. planting values compared under the Abello formula). Entitled to reimbursement (Art 546) if option (a); can insist on buying if his planting value “considerably exceeds” land value (Art 448 2nd par.).
p in bad faith; l in good faith (Arts 449‑450) (a) Appropriate without paying or (b) demand removal at p’s cost, plus damages. No indemnity; must remove if required.
Both in bad faith (Art 453) Court “shall decide each case according to justice and equity.” Often leads to division of cost/value.

Fruits while the dispute is pending

  • Possessor in good faith gathers and keeps them until possession is legally interrupted (Art 443).
  • Possessor in bad faith must return net fruits plus interest (Art 549).

Case law to note

  • Depra v. Dumlao (G.R. 74225, 1988) – Option reconfiguration when land worth far less than structure/planting.
  • Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa (G.R. 170139, 2010) – Court may appoint commissioners to compute and allow payment period.

3  | Trees as Immovables and as Forest Resources

3.1 Civil‑Code Classification

Standing trees are immovable property (Art 415 (2)). By accession, they belong to the landowner unless a special law says otherwise.

3.2 The State’s Parens Patriae over Timber

Under PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code) and later amendments (e.g., RA 7161 on forest charges, RA 9175 Chainsaw Act), all timber and other forest products “belong to the State” —whether on public or private land—until lawfully cut and removed under license. Cutting without a DENR permit is:

  • A criminal offense (PD 705 sec. 77 as re‑enacted in sec. 68)
  • Grounds for seizure of lumber and chainsaw (RA 9175 §7)

Even a titled landowner may not lawfully harvest premium or endangered species (e.g., narra, kamagong) without prior clearance. Thus, title ≠ automatic right to cut.

3.3 Special Species & Urban Trees

  • RA 3571 (1963) protects trees in public roads, plazas, parks, school premises.
  • RA 10176 (Arbor Day Act) mandates replanting and LGU ordinances on tree‑cutting.
  • Local Government Code §17 empowers barangays to regulate “tree planting” and removal of obstructive branches.

4  | Boundary Situations: Branches, Roots, Fruits

4.1 Overhanging Branches and Intruding Roots

  • Article 684: A neighbor may compel owner of tree to cut branches/roots that encroach, or cut them himself if owner refuses.
  • Damages may be claimed if roots undermine structures or clog drains (Art 2176 quasi‑delict).

4.2 Fallen Fruits on Adjacent Land

Fruits naturally falling belong to the land on which they fall (Art 438). A neighbor may pick up mangoes that drop on his side, but cannot climb the tree or shake branches without consent.


5  | Public‑Domain and Indigenous Lands

5.1 Forestland and Mineral Reservations

Land classified as forest or mineral is inalienable and imprescriptible; no private title can be issued (Cariño doctrine codified in PD 705 §15). Any planting thereon vests no ownership in the planter; trees remain State property.

5.2 Ancestral Domains (RA 8371)

Indigenous Cultural Communities that hold a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) own the land and natural resources except timber, minerals, wildlife—still regulated by DENR/NCIP. Encroachment by outsiders triggers ejectment plus criminal sanctions under §72, §78.


6  | Agrarian‑Reform Overlay

Where the land is tenanted and covered by RA 6657 (CARL) or prior agrarian statutes:

  • A farmer‑beneficiary’s perennial crops (e.g., coconuts, bananas) are improvements that factor into compensation if the tenancy is lawfully terminated.
  • Ejectment of a bona‑fide tenant requires DAR clearance; Civil‑Code Articles 449‑456 yield to the social‑justice policy favoring security of tenure.

7  | Procedural Remedies

7.1 Barangay Conciliation

Republic Act 7160 §399‑422 requires disputants who reside in the same city/municipality to undergo katarungang pambarangay conciliation before filing most civil suits.

7.2 Civil Actions

  • Accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership/possession)

  • Accion publiciana (>1 year dispossession) or forcible entry (<1 data-preserve-html-node="true" year)

  • Special action under Art 448 – Courts typically:

    1. Determine good/bad faith;
    2. Require parties to submit appraisal evidence;
    3. Apply the “double‑option” formula (Spouses Abalos v. Heirs of Gomez, G.R. 150635, 2005).

7.3 Provisional Relief

  • Writ of preliminary injunction or Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to stop tree‑cutting.

7.4 Criminal Complaints

  • Qualified theft (RPC Art 310) for harvesting fruits/wood from another’s land.
  • Usurpation of real rights (Art 312) for removing boundary monuments or occupying land.
  • Illegal logging (PD 705) regardless of private/public ownership.

8  | Valuation and Indemnity in Practice

Item Common valuation basis Notes
Standing timber DENR schedule of values × tree girth/height; or independent forester appraisal Plus forest charges & penalties if cut without permit
Fruit trees (a) Market value of standing tree or (b) capitalized net annual fruit income Courts often adopt (b) for bearing mango, rambutan, etc.
Annual crops Current farm‑gate price at time of destruction No value if planter in bad faith and crops removed by owner

Courts may offset values if both parties in bad faith (Art 453), or allow staggered payments with legal interest (Art 448 last paragraph).


9  | Practical Guidance

  1. Survey first, plant later. Encroachments often stem from outdated tax‑map bearings.
  2. Secure DENR clearance before cutting or even pruning protected species.
  3. Document good faith (e.g., approved subdivision plan, tax declarations) to preserve reimbursement rights.
  4. Consider a perimeter‑swap (transactions per Art 448) where absorbing the strip avoids further litigation.
  5. Use barangay mediation to craft a settlement (e.g., sharing of fruits during remaining productive life of trees).
  6. For mixed encroachment (structure + trees) address each component separately; the Civil Code treats buildings, plantings, and sowings distinctly.

10  | Key Cases (Chronological Glance)

Year Case Holding relevant to plants/trees
1972 Vda. de Reyes v. CA Builder/planter in good faith entitled to reimbursement or compelled to buy land.
1988 Depra v. Dumlao Trial court must apply Art 448 and allow choice; error to order outright removal.
2005 Spouses Abalos v. Heirs of Gomez Clarified “considerably more valuable” test & computation method.
2010 Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa Discussed equitable payment period and commissioners’ role.
2013 Republic v. CA (Banlat) Even titled land can be classified forest; trees thereon remain State property.
2020 People v. Parayno Illegal cutting conviction sustained despite private title; DENR permit lacking.

11  | Synthesis

  • Civil‑Code rules allocate ownership and compensation largely on moral fault (good vs. bad faith).
  • Forestry statutes overlay an almost absolute State dominion over standing timber and protected species, overriding private bargains.
  • Equity and social‑justice laws (agrarian, indigenous) can modify or displace traditional Civil‑Code outcomes.

Thus, the practical rights to plants and trees on encroached land are never judged in a vacuum; they are the product of a layered legal regime plus a growing environmental‑protection ethic.


Disclaimer: This article is a scholarly overview and not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Consult Philippine counsel or the DENR for case‑specific action.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.