Sei sulla pagina 1di 1


Expounding on this provision in a recent case, we have held that the principle of
unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay,
and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.

In light of the overpayment, it seems specious for petitioner to claim that it has
suffered damages from respondents refusal to pay its Progress Billing, which had
been proven to be excessive and inaccurate. Bearing in mind the law and
jurisprudence on unjust enrichment, we hold that petitioner is indeed liable to return
what it had received beyond the actual value of the work it had done for
respondent. - R.V. Santos Company, Inc. vs. Belle Corporation, G.R. Nos. 159561-62,
October 3, 2012