You paid what you did not owe: you need not prove you were mistaken

They are Articles 1520 and 1521 of the Civil Code of 2020: the right to have returned what you paid without owing it, the clarification that it does not depend on mistake, and the three cases where there is no obligation to restore.

Whoever paid a thing or amount they did not owe, without legal cause, and whoever received it, under the Puerto Rico Civil Code.

• That payment was made of a thing or amount not owed, without legal cause.Verified against the official source
• The restitution is not subject to the payment having been made by mistake.Verified against the official source
• There is no obligation to restore in the three cases of Article 1521.Verified against the official source
• In the third case, whoever made the payment has legal subrogation in the rights of whoever received it.Verified against the official source

• The record of the payment: what was paid, to whom and when.
• The record that the debt did not exist or was already satisfied, as the case may be.

1. 1

   Step 1: The rule, in one line

   Article 1520: whoever, without legal cause, has made payment of a thing or amount they did not owe has the right to demand its restitution from whoever received it. The claim runs against whoever received the payment.

2. 2

   Step 2: You do not have to prove you were mistaken

   Second paragraph: the restitution of the payment is not subject to its having been made by mistake. The article’s own title calls it "irrelevance of mistake". It is the opposite of what many assume, which is why it deserves slow reading.

3. 3

   Step 3: What is required: that there was no legal cause

   The condition is in the first line: without legal cause. The Code does not define that expression here, and this guide does not define it for it.

4. 4

   Step 4: First no-restitution case: the protection of a registry

   Article 1521(a): if the one who received the payment enjoys the protection of a registry or of a rule established to guarantee their title. The article does not say which registry or which rule, and this guide does not point to one.

5. 5

   Step 5: Second: a judicially unenforceable obligation

   Subsection (b): if the payment was made to satisfy a judicially unenforceable obligation. The Code does not explain here what makes an obligation judicially unenforceable, and this guide does not fill that in.

6. 6

   Step 6: Third: the good-faith creditor who let go of its security

   Subsection (c): if the one who received the payment, believing in good faith that it was made on account of a legitimate and subsisting credit, destroys the title, lets the action prescribe, abandons or cancels the guarantees of their right. Four behaviours, all under the same good-faith belief.

7. 7

   Step 7: But there you are not left with nothing

   The same subsection closes it: however, the person who makes the payment has legal subrogation in their rights. You do not recover the money from whoever received it, but you take their position against whoever actually owed.

8. 8

   Step 8: What these two articles do not carry

   They do not define legal cause, do not identify the registry or title rule of subsection (a), do not explain the judicial unenforceability of subsection (b), set no period to claim and name no fee. None of that is here.

9. 9

   Step 9: What this guide does not cover of the chapter

   What the recipient answers for depending on good or bad faith, the crediting of improvements and expenses, and the presumption of error in Article 1525 are in the following articles, with their own guide.

The claim runs against whoever received the payment; the Code names no agency for this chapter. It is decided by the Court of First Instance.

• Giving up the claim believing the mistake must be proved: Article 1520 says restitution does not depend on it.
• Claiming from someone who did not receive the payment: the action runs against whoever received it.
• Not documenting what was paid, to whom and when.
• Forgetting the three cases of Article 1521 where there is no obligation to restore.
• Overlooking that in the third case there is legal subrogation in the recipient’s rights.
• Assuming it is enough that the payment was a mistake: what the article asks is that there be no legal cause.
• Confusing this chapter with unjust enrichment, which is the Code’s next chapter.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov