Short answer. Yes. Even without express ratification, an owner who enjoys the advantages of the management must reimburse the officious manager's necessary and useful expenses and any damage he suffered. And where the management aimed to prevent an imminent and manifest loss, that duty holds even if no benefit was ultimately derived.
What the law says
Although the officious management may not have been expressly ratified, the owner of the property or business who enjoys the advantages of the same shall be liable for obligations incurred in his interest, and shall reimburse the officious manager for the necessary and useful expenses and for the damages which the latter may have suffered in the performance of his duties.
Civil Code, Article 2150 — Owner's Liability Despite No Ratification. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the management had for its purpose the prevention of an imminent and manifest loss, although no benefit may have been derived.
Civil Code, Article 2150 — Owner's Liability Despite No Ratification. Read the full provision →
Reimbursement without a formal blessing
You do not need the owner's after-the-fact approval to be repaid. Article 2150 provides that although the officious management may not have been expressly ratified, the owner of the property or business who enjoys the advantages of the same shall be liable for obligations incurred in his interest, and shall reimburse the officious manager for the necessary and useful expenses and for the damages which the latter may have suffered in the performance of his duties. An owner who takes the benefit of what you did cannot keep the advantage while disclaiming its cost.
What you can recover
The article measures recovery in three parts. Necessary expenses are those required to preserve the property or keep the affair going; useful expenses are those that added value the owner now enjoys; and damages covers loss you yourself suffered in the course of doing the work. The owner is also answerable for obligations you properly incurred in his interest. What the provision does not promise is a fee for your trouble or reimbursement of outlays that were neither needed nor useful — the yardstick is what the situation genuinely called for, judged against the owner's interest, not your generosity.
The emergency limb: danger prevented is enough
The second sentence is the one that answers the emergency case squarely: the same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the management had for its purpose the prevention of an imminent and manifest loss, although no benefit may have been derived. Ordinarily reimbursement rides on the owner having enjoyed an advantage. But where you intervened to head off an imminent and manifest loss, you are reimbursed even if the effort produced no gain the owner can point to. The law rewards timely rescue on its own terms, not only when it happens to leave the owner better off.
Benefit or danger — establishing which
Recovery under this article rests on one of two footings, so it helps to know which one your case stands on. Either the owner enjoyed an advantage from what you did, or the management was aimed at preventing an imminent and manifest loss; establishing either opens the door to reimbursement. A neighbour who acts in a genuine emergency usually relies on the second, and should be able to show the loss was truly imminent and obvious and that his intervention was directed at averting it. Keeping a clear record of what was spent and why is what turns a good claim into a provable one.