In short
The four articles closing the chapter on payment of what is not owed answer one question with two very different answers, depending on whether the recipient knew the payment was not theirs. Article 1522 deals with bad faith: whoever has accepted or retained an undue payment, knowing it does not correspond to them, must pay the legal interest if it is capital, or the natural fruits received or that should have been received. And it adds a broad liability: it answers for the impairments the thing has suffered for whatever cause and for the damage caused to the one who delivered it until they recover it; but it may be released from that liability if it proves the non-imputable cause would have affected the things in the same way had they been in the hands of the one who delivered them. Article 1523 deals with good faith and the contrast is stark: the person who in good faith has accepted an undue payment of a certain and determined thing only answers for its deterioration or losses and those of its accessions, to the extent they have been enriched by them; and if they have alienated the thing, they are only obliged to restore the price or to assign the action to make it effective. Article 1524 invents no rules of its own: the crediting of improvements and expenses made by the person who unduly received the thing is governed by what this Code provides for the possessor in good or bad faith, a subject with its own guide on this site. And Article 1525 sets a presumption: it is presumed that there is error in the payment where a thing is delivered that was never owed, payment is made in excess of what is owed, or a debt already satisfied is paid; but the person from whom the return is sought may prove that the delivery was made by way of liberality or for another just cause. It is worth reading alongside the article opening the chapter, which says restitution does not depend on there having been a mistake: the Code carries both and does not explain how they fit.
What is it?
They are Articles 1522 to 1525 of the Civil Code of 2020: what a bad-faith recipient of an undue payment must return, what a good-faith one owes, how improvements and expenses are credited, and when error is presumed.
Who can do it?
Whoever received a payment or a thing that did not correspond to them, and whoever delivered it, under the Puerto Rico Civil Code.
Requirements
- In bad faith: pay the legal interest if it is capital, or the natural fruits received or that should have been received.Verified against the official source
- In bad faith: answer for the impairments the thing suffered for whatever cause and for the damage caused until it is recovered.Verified against the official source
- In good faith: answer for deterioration or losses only to the extent enriched by them; if the thing was alienated, restore the price or assign the action.Verified against the official source
- Error is presumed where a thing never owed is delivered, payment exceeds what is owed, or an already satisfied debt is paid; the recipient may prove liberality or another just cause.Verified against the official source
Documents you need
Cost
Step by step
Step 1: It all turns on whether you knew
The chapter splits in two depending on whether the recipient knew the payment was not theirs. Article 1522 writes the regime for the one who knew; 1523, for the one who did not.
Step 2: Bad faith: interest or fruits
Article 1522: whoever has accepted or retained an undue payment, knowing it does not correspond to them, must pay the legal interest if it is capital, or the natural fruits received or that should have been received. Note "or that should have been received": not collecting them is no defence.
Step 3: And answers for nearly anything that happens to the thing
Second paragraph: it answers for the impairments the thing has suffered for whatever cause and for the damage caused to the one who delivered it until they recover it. "For whatever cause" is a very broad liability, and the article writes it that way.
Step 4: With one written way out
The same paragraph: it may be released from this liability if it proves the non-imputable cause would have affected the things in the same way had they been in the hands of the one who delivered them. The burden of that proof is on the recipient.
Step 5: Good faith: only as far as you were enriched
Article 1523: the person who in good faith has accepted an undue payment of a certain and determined thing only answers for its deterioration or losses and those of its accessions, to the extent they have been enriched by them. The measure of the duty is one’s own enrichment, not the other’s loss.
Step 6: And if you already sold it in good faith
The same article: if they have alienated the thing, they are only obliged to restore the price or to assign the action to make it effective. Two options, and neither is returning the real value if the price was different.
Step 7: Improvements and expenses run on other rules
Article 1524: the crediting of improvements and expenses made by the person who unduly received the thing is governed by what this Code provides for the possessor in good or bad faith. The Code refers inside itself, to the possession rules, which have their own guide on this site.
Step 8: When error is presumed
Article 1525, three situations: where a thing is delivered that was never owed, where payment is made in excess of what is owed, and where a debt already satisfied is paid. In all three, the presumption runs in favour of the payer.
Step 9: And how that presumption is rebutted
The same article: but the person from whom the return is sought may prove that the delivery was made by way of liberality or for another just cause. Two routes: the gift, or any other just cause.
Step 10: Two rules of the same chapter that coexist unexplained
The article opening the chapter says the restitution of the payment is not subject to its having been made by mistake; Article 1525 builds a presumption of error for three situations. The Code carries both and does not say how they fit. This guide prints both and reconciles neither.
Step 11: What these articles do not carry
They do not fix the legal interest rate here, do not define good or bad faith, do not say who must prove bad faith, and set no period to claim. None of that is here.
Where to do it
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. The crediting of improvements and expenses is governed by the possession rules, inside the same Code.
How long it takes
What to do if something goes wrong
If what you want to know is whether you are entitled to a return, that is in the two articles opening the chapter, with their own guide, and there it says restitution does not depend on mistake. If your matter is an improper charge by a merchant or a collection agency, there are separate guides. If you are after the legal interest rate, this chapter does not fix it and there are guides on interest. These articles do not define good or bad faith, do not say who must prove it, and set no period. MiPRFácil does not represent anyone in court and gives no legal advice.
Common mistakes
- Keeping a payment knowing it does not correspond: that triggers the bad-faith regime of Article 1522.
- Believing returning the capital is enough: in bad faith the legal interest or the fruits are owed too.
- Forgetting that the fruits that should have been received are owed, not only those received.
- Assuming bad faith only answers for what one caused: the article says "for whatever cause".
- Not attempting the one written way out: proving the non-imputable cause would have affected the thing the same in the deliverer’s hands.
- Believing the good-faith recipient answers for the full value: they answer to the extent enriched.
- Expecting the real value of a thing sold in good faith: the article requires restoring the price or assigning the action.
- Looking in these articles for the improvements and expenses rules: they run on the possession rules.
- Overlooking that the recipient may prove the delivery was made by way of liberality or for another just cause.
Frequently asked questions
I was overpaid and I knew it. What must I return?
Article 1522 requires whoever accepted or retained the payment knowing it was not theirs to pay the legal interest if it is capital, or the natural fruits received or that should have been received, besides answering for impairments and damage.
I received something in good faith that was not mine and it was damaged. Do I answer?
Article 1523 says they answer for the thing’s deterioration or losses and those of its accessions only to the extent they have been enriched by them.
I already sold it in good faith. What do I return?
Article 1523 says that if they have alienated the thing, they are only obliged to restore the price or to assign the action to make it effective.
The same invoice was paid twice. Is error presumed?
Article 1525 presumes error where a debt already satisfied is paid, and also where a thing never owed is delivered or payment exceeds what is owed; but the recipient may prove the delivery was made by way of liberality or for another just cause.
Official sources
These are the government pages this guide is based on.
- Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico
Poder Judicial
bvirtualogp.pr.gov
Last verified
September 10, 2026
MiPRFácil is an independent informational website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Government of Puerto Rico or any government agency.
MiPRFácil does not submit applications on your behalf.
Was this guide helpful?
Did you find out-of-date information?
You paid what you did not owe: you need not prove you were mistaken
Article 1520 gives the right to demand restitution of what was paid without legal cause, and says expressly it does not depend on a mistake.
You lost possession: which improvements are paid and which crop you keep
Necessary expenses are paid to every possessor; useful ones only to the good-faith possessor, who may also retain the thing until paid.
Money debts: what they are paid in and when interest runs
The Code requires payment in the specie agreed and, failing that, in legal tender. It says "legal interest", and Article 1169 says which.
What an obligation is and where it comes from
Six sources, and the list stays open. Whoever performs knowing they were not bound cannot demand it back.
No one has to accept part payment or a different thing
The obligation is extinguished when what is owed is delivered in full. The creditor cannot be compelled to take part, or something else.
Debt collection agencies: the 15 practices the law forbids them
Act 143-1968 licenses collection agencies and forbids fifteen practices, from threatening violence to charging additional fees never agreed to.