Civil Code, Article 22 — Unjust Enrichment (Accion In Rem Verso)

What this article means

This codifies the principle against unjust enrichment — nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest. Anyone who acquires or holds something at another's expense without a just or legal ground must return it. Its two requisites: (1) enrichment of one party at the expense of another, and (2) the absence of any legal basis for it. It is the foundation of the remedy called accion in rem verso and of the rules on solutio indebiti.

Questions about this provision

• I paid a downpayment on a lot but the sale never pushed through, and the seller refuses to return my money — can I get it back even without a written contract?

Related provisions

• Article 23 — liability for benefit even without fault.
• Article 19 — the good-faith standard of human relations.

Cases citing this article

• 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 →
• Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, Dr. Pablo F. Narag, in representation of Permanent Employees of, G.R. No. 227715, November 3, 2020 — 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.