Short answer. Probably yes, but not because of Article 1158. That article says obligations derived from law are not presumed. Liability for dues usually comes from somewhere else — the deed restrictions annotated on your title, which bind every buyer of the lot whether or not they signed anything with the association.

What the law says

Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable

Civil Code, Article 1158 — Obligations From Law. Read the full provision →

What Article 1158 actually says

Article 1158 provides that Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and that they are regulated by the precepts of the law establishing them. Read carelessly, that looks like a shield: no signature, no obligation. Read properly, it is a question — which law or which contract is the association relying on? Article 1157 lists five sources of obligation, and a contract is only one of them. So the right response to a demand letter is not to deny signing, but to ask what the claim is founded on.

Usually you did agree, in the deed

In most subdivisions the answer is the deed of restrictions. Those covenants are annotated on the certificate of title, run with the land, and are accepted by anyone who buys the lot: you took the title as it stood, encumbrances included. That is a contractual source, not a legal one, and it is why I never signed anything with the association is usually beside the point — you signed the deed of sale for a lot that already carried the restriction. Article 1311 makes contracts take effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs, and a buyer stepping into the seller's position takes the burden with the benefit.

What the association still has to show

None of this makes every billed amount payable. An association claiming dues has to point to the instrument that binds your lot and show that the amount was fixed the way that instrument and its own governing documents require. Special assessments, penalties and rate increases imposed without following the association's own rules are open to challenge on that ground, and a demand that cannot identify its basis is worth answering in writing. Article 1158's warning cuts both ways: what the law does not expressly impose cannot be demanded merely because an association resolved that it should be.

Where the enrichment argument comes in

There is a fallback associations rely on when the paperwork is thin. If you have used the roads, the guards, the drainage and the street lighting that the dues pay for, refusing to contribute raises the principle behind Article 2142 — that certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract, to the end that no one is unjustly enriched at another's expense. It is not as strong as a covenant on your title, but it is not nothing. Ask for the annotated title, the deed restrictions and the resolution fixing the rate before deciding what to pay.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.