Short answer. Yes, in that narrow case. The general rule leaves a guarantor who paid without notice to recover only from the creditor. But Article 2070 adds that in a gratuitous guaranty, if a fortuitous event prevented you from warning the debtor and the creditor then becomes insolvent, the debtor must reimburse you the amount paid.
What the law says
in case of a gratuitous guaranty, if the guarantor was prevented by a fortuitous event from advising the debtor of the payment, and the creditor becomes insolvent, the debtor shall reimburse the guarantor for the amount paid
Civil Code, Article 2070 — Double Payment. Read the full provision →
Starting from the harsh default
Ordinarily, a guarantor who pays without notifying the debtor, only for the debtor to pay again in ignorance, has no claim against the debtor at all — his remedy lies solely against the creditor who was paid twice. But that remedy assumes the creditor can actually be made to give the surplus back. Article 2070 carves out a fallback for when that assumption fails: in case of a gratuitous guaranty, if the guarantor was prevented by a fortuitous event from advising the debtor of the payment, and the creditor becomes insolvent, the debtor shall reimburse the guarantor for the amount paid.
Three conditions, all required
The exception is tightly drawn and each element must be present. First, the guaranty must have been gratuitous — you took on the risk as a favour, without charging for it. Second, your failure to notify the debtor must have been caused by a fortuitous event, something beyond your control, not mere forgetfulness or neglect. Third, the creditor must have become insolvent, so that the ordinary remedy of recovering the double payment from him has become worthless. Miss any one of these and the general rule reasserts itself, sending you back to the creditor alone.
Why the loss shifts to the debtor
The provision is an exercise in fairness under pressure. A gratuitous guarantor who acted for another's benefit, and who was genuinely prevented from giving notice, should not be left to absorb a loss when the creditor route collapses. The debtor, after all, did receive the benefit of having his obligation discharged by the guarantor's payment. Between an innocent volunteer left empty-handed and a debtor whose debt was in fact paid, the Code puts the burden on the debtor to reimburse — but only because the unusual combination of gratuitous service, blameless silence, and an insolvent creditor has arisen.
Treat it as a last resort
This is a rescue provision, not a plan to rely on. The dependable course is always to notify the debtor before paying, which keeps you out of the double-payment problem entirely. If you do find yourself within this exception, be ready to prove all three of its conditions: that the guaranty carried no compensation, that a genuine fortuitous event stopped you from advising the debtor, and that the creditor is in fact insolvent. Without complete proof of each, a court will apply the ordinary rule, and your recovery will lie only against the creditor you can no longer collect from.