Short answer. Yes, the choice is yours. Article 471 lets the owner of material used without his consent, who is entitled to indemnity, demand that it take the form of the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value to what was used — rather than money. The alternative is the price, fixed by expert appraisal.
What the law says
Whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity, he may demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal.
Civil Code, Article 471 — Form of Indemnity. Read the full provision →
The owner chooses the form of indemnity
When your material has been used without your consent and you are entitled to be indemnified, Article 471 puts the form of that indemnity in your hands. It says you may demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof. So you are not confined to accepting money. You may insist on being given back a replacement — a thing of the same kind and quality as what was taken and used — if that is what you prefer. The one who used your material cannot force a cash settlement on you when you would rather have the thing itself restored.
What 'equal in kind and value' requires
The replacement option is not satisfied by anything roughly similar. The article requires a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to the material that was employed. That means the same type of material, of the same quality and worth, matching the original as closely as possible. This protects you from being handed an inferior substitute dressed up as a replacement. If the material used was of a particular grade or specification, the thing delivered to you must measure up to it. The standard is equivalence across the board, not merely something that falls loosely within the same general category.
The money alternative and expert appraisal
The article also preserves a cash route: indemnity may instead be given in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal. Where a like-for-like replacement is impractical, or where you prefer to be paid, the value of the material is determined not by either party's say-so but by an expert appraisal. Tying the price to an appraisal guards both sides — the owner against being underpaid, and the user against being overcharged — by anchoring the figure to a neutral valuation of what the material was actually worth. The choice between the replacement and the appraised price is exercised through the owner's demand.
First there must be a right to indemnity
Article 471 answers a narrow question — the form the indemnity takes — and it assumes the prior question is already settled. It applies only whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity. It does not, by itself, establish that you are entitled to be indemnified. Whether a right to indemnity exists, and how it is measured, depends on the wider rules on accession governing materials joined to another's work or property, including the good or bad faith of the person who used them. Establish that entitlement first; Article 471 then lets you decide whether to take replacement or the appraised price.