Article 22 of the Civil Code: Unjust enrichment
Status: In force
What does Article 22 say?
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 22 of the Civil Code states the rule against unjust enrichment: a person who gets something at another person's expense, without a just or legal ground, must give it back. It does not matter whether the thing came through the other person's act or by any other means. The Supreme Court requires two things: a benefit without valid basis, and a loss or damage to the other person.
How does it work in real life?
Cash handed to the wrong person
Jun owes money to Ana. He hands the payment to Ella by mistake, thinking she is Ana. Ella has no right to demand anything from Jun. She received the money at his expense without any legal ground. Under Article 22, and more specifically Article 2154 because the money was delivered by mistake, Ella is to return it.
A gift is a ground
Rhea gives her cousin money as a birthday gift and later regrets it. A gift is a legal ground, so Article 22 does not apply to it; the rules on donations govern instead.
What does this mean in practice?
- Mistaken payments: see Article 2154. Online scams are a different situation: see scammed online: what to do.
- Someone who builds on another's land in good faith has specific rules: see builder in good faith.
- Interest on amounts to be returned: see the legal interest rate.
- See also the meaning of unjust enrichment and the question on money sent to the wrong account.
- For free or low-cost legal help, see where to find legal help.
What does Article 22 say?
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
In plain words:
- "Through an act of performance by another, or any other means": the benefit may come from the other person's own act (such as a payment) or in any other way.
- "At the expense of the latter": someone else bears the cost.
- "Without just or legal ground": no contract, law, gift or other valid reason supports the benefit.
- "Shall return the same": the remedy is restitution, giving back what was gained.
Article 22 sits in the chapter on human relations, after the duty to act with justice and good faith (Article 19) and the rules on damages for acts contrary to law or to morals (Articles 20 and 21).
What must be shown?
In BDO Unibank v. Barcellano (2026), the Supreme Court said Article 22 applies when:
- a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification; and
- the benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.
In Yon Mitori International Industries v. Union Bank (2020), the Court stated the same requisites: a person is unjustly benefited, and the benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
How is it related to quasi-contracts?
The Civil Code builds a whole group of obligations on the same idea. Article 2142 says:
Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.
The best known is solutio indebiti, the duty to return something delivered by mistake (Article 2154).
How have courts applied it?
- A depositor who knew. In Yon Mitori (2020), a check was credited to a depositor's account early through a technical error and later bounced. The depositor withdrew the money knowing he was not entitled to it. The Court held that he had to return the funds to the bank.
- A depositor in good faith and a negligent bank. In BDO Unibank v. Barcellano (2026), the bank wrongly treated a regional check as local and let the depositor withdraw before clearing. The Court found the bank grossly negligent and found no proof that the depositor knowingly received a benefit she was not entitled to. The Court denied the bank's petition.
Frequently asked questions
What is unjust enrichment under Philippine law?
Article 22 of the Civil Code says every person who acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of another without just or legal ground shall return it to him.
What are the requisites of unjust enrichment?
In BDO Unibank v. Barcellano (2026), the Supreme Court said Article 22 requires that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and that the benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.
Is unjust enrichment the same as solutio indebiti?
Solutio indebiti under Article 2154 is a specific case: something delivered by mistake to a person who had no right to demand it. Article 22 states the broader principle.
Does the person who benefited have to know it was not his?
Knowledge matters in the cases. In Yon Mitori International Industries v. Union Bank (2020), a depositor who withdrew funds knowing he was not entitled to them had to return them. In BDO Unibank v. Barcellano (2026), a depositor who believed in good faith that the money was hers did not.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?