Short answer. Yes. Article 2169 of the Civil Code makes you liable for the expenses when the government does necessary work to correct your failure to comply with health or safety regulations concerning your property, even if you objected. Your objection does not excuse you from paying for the work once carried out.
What the law says
When the government, upon the failure of any person to comply with health or safety regulations concerning property, undertakes to do the necessary work, even over his objection, he shall be liable to pay the expenses.
Civil Code, Article 2169 — Government Work Done at the Owner's Expense. Read the full provision →
Why your objection does not stop the liability
Article 2169 addresses a specific situation: a property owner fails to comply with health or safety regulations, and the government steps in to do the work that compliance would have required. The article says this can happen even over his objection, and despite that objection, the owner shall be liable to pay the expenses. The rule assumes that once a health or safety regulation is not being followed, the government's interest in correcting the hazard can override the owner's preference not to have the work done at all.
What triggers this liability in the first place
The liability under Article 2169 is tied to a specific sequence: there must be a health or safety regulation concerning the property, a failure by the person responsible to comply with it, and the government then undertaking the necessary work as a result of that failure. It is this combination, non-compliance followed by government-performed work, that grounds the obligation to pay, rather than any government expenditure on a property being automatically chargeable to the owner regardless of the reason.
What this means practically for the owner
Because liability follows from your own failure to comply with the applicable regulation, the practical takeaway is that addressing a known health or safety hazard yourself, rather than waiting and objecting once the government intervenes, avoids the situation this article covers. Once the government has stepped in and performed the necessary work, Article 2169 places responsibility for the resulting expenses on the property owner whose non-compliance made that work necessary, regardless of any objection raised at the time it was carried out.
What this article does not cover
Article 2169 speaks specifically to expenses arising from a failure to comply with health or safety regulations concerning the property. It does not address unrelated government expenditures on private property, or work undertaken for purposes other than correcting that kind of regulatory non-compliance. Whether a particular government intervention falls within this article depends on whether it was genuinely aimed at addressing a health or safety violation tied to regulations the owner had failed to observe.