CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Hernán Fleischmann, Paulo Román, Benjamín Jordán and Juan Zulic, Fleischmann & Román Abogados
validity of one of the most relevant principles in the Chilean legal system, namely the principle of unjust enrichment without cause or unjust enrichment. Summary of the case During the 1980s, in the county of Bulnes (in Diguillín province, Ñuble region), a third party built a residential building in plain sight of the landowner. In 2018, the Chilean Treasury sub- sequently expropriated the entire land (including the third party’s building) and paid compensa- tion to the landowner for the expropriation of the land and the third party’s building on it. The third party who built on the land sued the landowner, demanding USD100,000 from them. The landowner had received the compensation from the Chilean Treasury for the expropriation of the building that the third party built. The first instance judge upheld the claim. The landowner appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals of Chillán upheld the first instance decision. The landowner filed an appeal in cas- sation on the merits to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered that the reason- ing of the judges on the merits of the case (the Court of Appeals and the lower court) was in accordance with the law, particularly the prin- ciple that proscribes unjust enrichment. In fact, the compensation received by the landowner from the Chilean Treasury considered the build- ing built by the plaintiff, so they received a great- er gain than they would have received without the building. The Supreme Court went on to say the great- er gain obtained by the landowner was at the expense of the third party who built the building,
without the owner’s opposition and through his mere tolerance. In other words, the Supreme Court correctly ruled that the third party who built a building on his property must be compensated if part of the compensation paid by the Treasury included the value of the building that was allowed by the landowner. Essentially the compensation that should have been paid to the landowner if the building had not existed would have been less, so the owner unjustly enriched himself by receiv- ing the full compensation. Analysis of the case This case is interesting because it ratifies the validity of one of the most relevant principles in the Chilean legal system: unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court did not limit itself to ratifying its validity. It went further and classified it as a prin- ciple of an essentially economic nature. Conse- quently, we believe the principle is applicable to all disputes of a patrimonial nature. The Supreme Court specifically ruled that, although this principle is not expressly regulated in any provision of Chilean law, it is a source of inspiration for a number of legal provisions of Chilean civil law, among them those underly- ing the case in question, which seek to avoid, in general, a person obtaining a greater gain than they should have obtained if the gain is at the expense or sacrifice of a third party (who is unduly impoverished) and without a title that justifies the gain or impoverishment. As can be seen, the Supreme Court emphasis- es that the purpose of this principle is to pre- vent a person from enriching themselves at the expense of another if they cannot legally justify this gain, so that if the assumptions justifying it are met, together with other provisions of the
282 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook