Short answer. Article 2144 does not itself say. It defines when you become a negotiorum gestor — someone who voluntarily manages another's affairs without authority — and requires you to finish what you started. Whether and how you recover what you spent is fixed by separate provisions this article does not restate.
What the law says
Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property of another, without any power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so.
Civil Code, Article 2144 — Negotiorum Gestio. Read the full provision →
What the law says
No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him.
Civil Code, Article 1317 — Contracts in the Name of Another (Unauthorized). Read the full provision →
What Article 2144 actually establishes
Article 2144 says: whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property of another, without any power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so. Notice what this creates: an obligation on you to see the undertaking through, not a stated right to be paid back. Stepping in voluntarily commits you to finishing the job, or arranging for the owner to take over once able.
When this relationship does not arise at all
The article carves out two situations where none of this applies: when the property or business is not neglected or abandoned, and when the manager has in fact been tacitly authorized by the owner. In the second situation, the article says the rules on agency instead govern the arrangement. In the first, it points elsewhere too: the provisions on unauthorized contracts apply, including Article 1317, which provides that no one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him.
Why this article does not settle reimbursement
Read the text again: it fixes when you count as a negotiorum gestor and obliges you to continue the undertaking. It does not contain a sentence about being paid back for expenses, and it would be inaccurate to say it does. Whether, and to what extent, someone who steps in this way can recover money spent is a question this article leaves to other provisions in the same title that were not part of what was verified here.
What to establish before assuming an answer either way
Work out first whether your situation actually fits this article at all: was the property or business genuinely neglected or abandoned, and did the owner never tacitly authorize what you did? If either exception applies, you are not even in negotiorum gestio territory, and a different set of rules governs instead. Keep records of what you spent and why, what condition things were in when you stepped in, and bring the full picture to a lawyer to work out what you can actually recover.
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.
- Manuel A. Torres, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 120138, September 5, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2144 — Negotiorum Gestio
- Civil Code, Article 1317 — Contracts in the Name of Another (Unauthorized)