Short answer. Yes. Article 471 gives you the choice: you may demand delivery of a thing equal in kind, value, and all other respects to the material that was used without your consent — or you may demand its price as determined by expert appraisal. The choice is yours, not the other party's.
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 →
Two forms of indemnity, your choice
Article 471 gives the materials owner a meaningful election in how to receive compensation. You are not limited to a cash payment calculated by whoever used your materials. You may instead demand delivery of a thing equal in kind and value to what was taken — not a mere equivalent in money, but an actual replacement that matches the original in all material respects. Alternatively, you may take the cash equivalent based on an expert appraisal. The choice is yours to exercise.
When in-kind replacement might be preferable
The in-kind option is most useful when the material was unique, difficult to source, or had special qualities beyond its market price — rare timber, custom-cut stone, specialized hardware, or materials with particular characteristics suited to a specific use. If cash will not adequately compensate you because the replacement cost is uncertain or because price alone does not capture the full value of what was taken, demanding a like-for-like replacement ensures you receive genuine equivalence. The replacement must match the original in kind and value, and in all other respects — a rough substitute does not satisfy the obligation.
When cash may be the better choice
If the materials were standard commodities readily available in the market, the cash option based on expert appraisal is often simpler to enforce. The appraisal must reflect the fair market value of the materials at the relevant time — not an artificially low or high figure — and the expert conducting it should be impartial and qualified. A cash payment also avoids logistical questions about exactly what type of replacement item must be delivered and whether any particular replacement actually matches the original.
How this fits into the broader accession framework
Article 471 applies in the context of adjunction, mixture, or combination — situations where one person's material has been joined to or mixed with another person's thing without consent. The indemnity right exists because the owner of the incorporated material has lost possession and title to something that is now part of another object, sometimes permanently. The law provides this compensation mechanism to make the materials owner whole. Once you have exercised your election between replacement and cash, a lawyer can help you enforce that choice if the other party refuses to comply.