Short answer. Yes. Article 22 obliges anyone who acquires something at another's expense without just or legal ground to return it. Money paid towards a sale that never happened is held without ground, and the duty to give it back does not depend on there being a signed contract between you.
What the law says
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Civil Code, Article 22 — Unjust Enrichment (Accion In Rem Verso). Read the full provision →
The claim does not rest on the contract
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. Notice what the article does not require. It does not ask for a written agreement, a perfected sale, or even an enforceable one. The elements are that he has your money, that he got it through your act of performance, and that he has no just or legal ground to keep it. The absence of a signed deed is the seller's problem here as much as yours.
The Code's wider machinery against retained benefits
Article 2142 states the principle behind it, providing that certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts create the relation of quasi-contract so that no one is unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. A neighbouring route is Article 2154, under which the obligation to return arises where something is received when there is no right to demand it and it was unduly delivered through mistake. Which provision fits depends on how the payment was made and why the sale collapsed, and that is a question of framing rather than of whether a remedy exists.
Where the real fight will be
It will be over the phrase without just or legal ground, because that is the seller's only defence. He will say the money was earnest money forming part of the price and evidencing a perfected sale, or that a written stipulation allowed forfeiture, or that the sale failed because you backed out rather than because he did. Each of those is a factual claim he must support. What he cannot do is keep the money simply because it was handed over and the deal is now dead; the ground has to exist, and he has to be able to point to it.
Make a written demand and keep the trail
Send a dated written demand for the return of a stated amount, and keep proof it was received, because that letter usually marks the point from which interest and further consequences are measured. Assemble the deposit slip, receipt or transfer record, every message discussing the price and the purpose of the payment, and anything explaining why the sale did not proceed. Recovery of the principal and a claim for what the delay cost you are separate questions; Article 2200 makes indemnification cover both the loss suffered and the profits you failed to obtain.
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.
- Carlos A. Loria vs. Ludolfo P. Muñoz, Jr, G.R. No. 187240, October 15, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Vicente S. Almario vs. PAL Inc, G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- MC Engineering, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 104047, April 3, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bdo Unibank, Inc. vs. Cristina Barcellano y Riego, G.R. No. 261264, February 12, 2026 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 22 — Unjust Enrichment (Accion In Rem Verso)
- Civil Code, Article 2142 — Quasi-Contracts Defined
- Civil Code, Article 2154 — Solutio Indebiti
- Civil Code, Article 2200 — Loss Suffered and Profits Not Realized