Text of the provision
Art. 2163. It is presumed that there was a mistake in the payment if something which had never been due or had already been paid was delivered; but he from whom the return is claimed may prove that the delivery was made out of liberality or for any other just cause.
(1901)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
It is presumed there was a mistake if a thing never due or already paid was delivered — but the payee may prove it was given out of liberality or another just cause.
This article sets a rebuttable presumption in the payer's favor: if what was delivered was something never actually owed, or something already paid before, the law presumes on its face that this happened by mistake, sparing the payer from having to prove his own error. The burden then shifts to the recipient, who may defeat the presumption by showing the delivery was in fact deliberate — made out of liberality, as a gift, or for some other just cause the recipient can point to. Without such proof, the presumption of mistake stands and restitution follows.
Questions about this provision
- I paid a debt that had already been paid - is the second payment presumed a mistake I can recover?
- I paid a debt that apparently was never owed at all — does the law presume that the payment was made by mistake?
Related provisions
- Article 2162 — Payee Who Destroyed His Evidence.
- Article 2164 — Support Furnished by a Stranger.
Cases citing this article
- Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Amado M. Mendoza and Maria Marcos Vda. De Mendoza, G.R. No. 198799, March 20, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corp. vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc, G.R. No. 158768, February 12, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.