The illegitimate enrichment It is a legal figure that occurs when there is an increase in assets without just cause, achieved by an individual to the detriment of the assets of another.
For example, the profit generated due to the transfer that a person makes of part of their assets to another individual with the intention of complying with an alleged debt, without there being any relationship or legal cause between them to justify said transfer..
Any financial outlay supposes the presence of an obligation. However, if it does not exist, there is no legal reason for canceling and therefore it must be reinstated. This return is known as regeneration of the undue. This enrichment is considered a variety of enrichment without cause.
The purpose of the illegitimate enrichment action is the replacement of the amount that is reflected with the verification between the decrease that the impoverished person has experienced and the improvement that the enriched person has profited.
Therefore, its objective is to be able to restore the balance that was altered due to an unjustified transfer..
Article index
Illegitimate enrichment is one of the different events that creates a debt. It is produced from a voluntary lawful act, through which the person who enriches himself to the detriment of another is obliged to compensate him for his impoverishment to the same extent as his enrichment.
It is when a benefit is executed by mistake without the obligation to verify it. It is a disbursement devoid of equity and for this reason against justice, becoming an effective cause of the right to claim and the obligation to replace what was paid illegitimately.
It is basically based on the fact that there is no cause to justify the reduction of one patrimony and the increase of another. In addition, there is no legal cause that can explain the partial or total transfer of the assets of one individual to that of another..
It can occur as a consequence of a commercial activity, an act of free practice that is executed by a third person without a suitable title, or by any other event exercised with intent and that is harmful..
The individual who is the victim of an illegitimate enrichment without a just reason can request compensation in the same proportion to the impoverishment he suffered, or what is the same, to the reduction of his fortune.
The purpose of the judicial regulation of the illegitimate enrichment event is to prevent the gain obtained by an individual, without having any cause that can justify it, from causing detriment to another person who has become impoverished due to the enrichment of that individual..
For this, there must be a relationship between the two situations, which requires that the rich person compensate those who have become impoverished to the same extent as the impoverishment they have suffered. Therefore, you must replace the amount of your benefit.
It is understood that the foundation that this has is found in the principle of equity, in which no one can unfairly increase their assets to the detriment of another. For this reason, the law makes the person who got rich illegitimately have the obligation to restore the damage to the person who became impoverished..
The Roman jurist Pomponius wrote the following sentence several centuries ago: "It is not correct by the laws of nature for someone to get rich unfairly at the expense of another person".
This maxim of Pomponio contains the key elements about the responsibility that springs from illegitimate enrichment, which are: there is an enrichment, it is unjustified and it has been generated at the expense of another individual..
These elements have had an evolution and are currently considered others. In principle, it is essential that there be enrichment, but there must also be a corresponding impoverishment. On the other hand, this enrichment must not have justification or any just cause. In addition, there must be a causal link.
The current legislation regarding illegitimate enrichment contains the following elements:
The enrichment of an individual must be generated. The person receives an increase in their assets by obtaining new assets, thus experiencing an economic benefit.
The impoverishment of another individual must be incited. That is, another person suffers from an impoverishment, which can be found in the transfer of certain goods, or in the elimination of some gain. This loss makes you a creditor.
There must be a causal relationship between such enrichment and impoverishment. One of them turns out to be the cause of the other, where the same event causes them.
There is no cause or legal justification that allows demonstrating the enrichment of one heritage along with the impoverishment of another.
For the illegitimate enrichment action to be successful, the following requirements must be met:
- Presenting an individual's injury along with another's benefit.
- That the events were committed with the knowledge that they would impoverish another individual.
Jessy is building a home on a lot of land that she does not own, which is adjacent to hers, but which she mistakenly assumed was her own..
However, the base built on that foreign land becomes the property of his neighbor José. In addition, the house built on the same land also becomes the authority of José, by conformity.
In this event, an increase in José's assets was generated, in addition to an impoverishment in Jessy's assets, without there having been any legal reason to explain or legitimize both Jessy's loss and José's gain..
This is because the law has not obliged Jessy to favor José with that construction, nor did Jessy want to favor him by granting him the construction carried out as a gift..
This event that produced the increase in José's assets is the legal act called illegitimate enrichment, generating as such an obligation for the person who benefited, which is José in this case..
What illegitimate enrichment assumes in principle is the absence of a debt between the person who disburses and the person who receives the payment..
The disbursement made by Jessy was done by mistake. This error could have been in fact or in law, excusable or not, but what is important is that a disbursement has been made that should not have been made..
Therefore, José is left with the commitment to reimburse the amount of his gain, which will be the same as that of the loss of the victim, which is Jessy in this case, having a correlative right to be compensated.
Yet No Comments