Short answer. No. Article 1944 of the Civil Code says the bailee cannot retain the thing loaned on the ground that the bailor owes the bailee something — even if the debt arises from expenses related to the loan. The only exception is the limited right of retention for damages caused by the lender's failure to disclose known defects.
What the law says
The bailee cannot retain the thing loaned on the ground that the bailor owes him something, even though it may be by reason of expenses. However, the bailee has a right of retention for damages mentioned in article 1951.
Civil Code, Article 1944 — No Retention Except for Damages. Read the full provision →
The general rule: no retention for separate debts
A commodatum — the kind of loan where you borrow a thing and return the same thing, not a replacement — imposes clear obligations on the bailee. One of those obligations is to return the thing when demanded. Article 1944 reinforces this: "The bailee cannot retain the thing loaned on the ground that the bailor owes him something, even though it may be by reason of expenses." The phrase "even though it may be by reason of expenses" is important — it means you cannot even use unpaid expense claims arising from the loan itself as grounds for holding on to the property, let alone an entirely separate debt from another transaction.
The narrow exception for defect-related damages
Article 1944 carves out one exception: "the bailee has a right of retention for damages mentioned in article 1951." Article 1951 concerns a specific situation — the bailor knew that the thing loaned had flaws and did not warn the bailee, and the bailee suffered harm because of those hidden defects. In that case, the bailee may retain the thing as security for the damages owed. This is a narrow right, tied to the bailor's failure to disclose known defects that caused actual harm. A general debt owed by the bailor from an unrelated transaction does not qualify.
Why the law draws this line
Commodatum is a gratuitous loan — the bailor lends without expecting payment in return. The law gives the bailee use of the property, not a security interest in it. Allowing the bailee to hold the thing hostage for whatever the bailor might owe would turn a simple loan into a collateral arrangement that neither party agreed to. It would also expose the bailor to the risk of losing access to their own property merely because of a separate dispute. The law keeps the two obligations distinct.
Your actual remedies if the bailor owes you money
If the person who lent you property genuinely owes you money from another transaction, the proper avenue is to pursue that claim separately — through demand, negotiation, or legal action — rather than withholding the borrowed property. Retaining the thing without legal basis exposes you to liability for breach of the commodatum, including liability for any deterioration or loss that occurs while you are unlawfully holding it. Return the property, document your separate claim, and pursue it through the appropriate channel.