Short answer. No. Article 2162 exempts you from the obligation to restore if, believing in good faith the payment settled a legitimate and subsisting claim, you destroyed the document. The person who paid by mistake can instead pursue the true debtor or any guarantor against whom their action is still available.
What the law says
He shall be exempt from the obligation to restore who, believing in good faith that the payment was being made of a legitimate and subsisting claim, destroyed the document, or allowed the action to prescribe, or gave up the pledges, or cancelled the guaranties for his right.
Civil Code, Article 2162 — Payee Who Destroyed His Evidence. Read the full provision →
What the law says
He who paid unduly may proceed only against the true debtor or the guarantors with regard to whom the action is still effective.
Civil Code, Article 2162 — Payee Who Destroyed His Evidence. Read the full provision →
Good-faith reliance excuses you from returning the payment
Article 2162 protects a creditor who reasonably relied on receiving what looked like a valid payment. It provides that he shall be exempt from the obligation to restore who, believing in good faith that the payment was being made of a legitimate and subsisting claim, destroyed the document, or allowed the action to prescribe, or gave up the pledges, or cancelled the guaranties for his right. Because you accepted the payment believing, in good faith, that it settled a real and still-valid claim, and you destroyed the document as a natural consequence of that belief, you are not required to give the money back to the person who paid it, even though the payment turned out to have been made by mistake.
Why destroying the document matters here
The exemption is tied specifically to actions like destroying the evidence of the debt, letting the underlying claim prescribe, releasing pledges, or cancelling guaranties, because those actions show you genuinely treated the debt as paid and closed, to the point of giving up your own means of enforcing it later if it turned out you were wrong. Having relied on the payment to that extent, requiring you to now return the money while you have already lost your ability to go after the true debtor directly would leave you worse off through no fault of your own.
The payer's remedy shifts to the true debtor
The article does not leave the person who paid by mistake without any recourse; it redirects where that recourse can be pursued. It states that he who paid unduly may proceed only against the true debtor or the guarantors with regard to whom the action is still effective. Instead of unwinding the payment made to you, the law lets the mistaken payer seek reimbursement from whoever actually owed the debt in the first place, or from a guarantor who can still be pursued, rather than from you as the innocent recipient.
What this means if you are the recipient
If someone paid you believing they owed a debt that turned out not to be theirs to pay, and you accepted that payment in good faith and, as a result, destroyed the document evidencing the claim or otherwise let your own means of enforcing it lapse, Article 2162 protects you from having to return the money. The mistaken payer's remedy lies against the person who was actually the debtor, not against you.