Short answer. Yes, but only up to the benefit. Article 23 says that even when the act or event causing damage was not due to your fault or negligence, you are liable for indemnity if through that act or event you were benefited. Fault is not required; the law simply will not let you keep a gain made at another's expense.
What the law says
Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.
Civil Code, Article 23 — Liability for Benefit Received Without Fault. Read the full provision →
Liability can exist without fault
Article 23 sets out a rule that surprises many people: Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. Ordinarily you answer for damage only when you were at fault or negligent. This article carves out an exception. If some act or event harmed another's property but left you better off, the law makes you indemnify, even though you did nothing wrong. The trigger is not blame; it is the benefit you received.
The principle behind it
The reason is fairness against unjust enrichment. The law will not let one person quietly keep a gain that came at the cost of damage to another. The classic illustration is someone who diverts floodwater away from his own land to save it, and in doing so the water damages his neighbour's property — he was not negligent, but he was benefited by the diversion. Article 23 says the neighbour who bore the loss should not shoulder it alone while the other pockets the advantage. Being spared a loss, or gaining property, is enough to attract the duty to indemnify.
How much you must pay
The article ties the liability to the benefit, not to the full extent of the damage. It speaks of being liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited, so what you owe is measured by the advantage you actually received. If your gain is smaller than the neighbour's loss, your indemnity is limited to that gain; you are not turned into a full-fledged wrongdoer. This keeps the remedy proportionate: it strips away the unjust enrichment without punishing conduct that was never faulty in the first place.
When the article does not apply
Article 23 needs a real benefit to you. If the damaging act or event left you no better off, the article gives the injured party nothing to claim under it — there is no enrichment to reverse. It also does not displace ordinary liability: where you were in fact at fault or negligent, the injured party may rely on the general rules on damages instead, which are not capped at your benefit. This provision fills a specific gap — the faultless but enriched defendant — and leaves the rest of the law of damages intact.
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.
- Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Robert Mar Chante a.k.a. Robert Mar G. Chan, G.R. No. 170598, October 9, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Dianos, G.R. No. 119311, October 7, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →