ARTICLE I: To Whom Restitution Must Be Made

The injured owner, to whom restitution is owed, is either certain and known, or doubtful among several, or entirely unknown; or finally he cannot be approached.

997. PRINCIPLES. I. If the owner is certain and known, restitution must be made to him, or to his successor. For the thing cries out for the owner.

Yet: 1. If the thing was accepted from the hands of a third just possessor, for example from a lessee, custodian, etc., it must be restored to this third party, and not to the owner, unless it is foreseen that he will probably abuse it, with injury to the owner (H. Ap., X, 64).

2. "Things accepted from a son under paternal power, a pupil, a madman, a wife, a religious, if they are from those goods whose administration does not belong to him, generally must be restored to the father, guardian, husband, prelate" (III, 596, 4). - But since different things are prescribed in different regions, one must ordinarily stand, in this matter, by the very words of the law.

3. If the creditor has been compelled to make a cession of his goods, restitution and payment of debts, generally, must be made to the administrator whom public authority has constituted.

Yet sometimes it is licit to restore even to the creditor himself, if namely he is in such necessity that he absolutely needs that debt for living; because, as is commonly taught, one ceding goods can certainly withdraw those things which are necessary for life for himself and his family (cf. n. 1023).

4. Restitution must be made to the community, if the community has suffered damage. Yet restitution of goods belonging to the republic can also be made to the poor. See what will be said in n. 1015, q. 3.

Restitution must be made to the injured community, even if this society, by reason of its end, were depraved, for example a non-Catholic sect. The case is excepted in which the society would not have the right of existing, for example Freemasons; for then restitution would have to be made to its members (Holy Office, Sept. 21, 1842). Concerning the mode of restoring to an insurance society, see ibid., q. 2.

From these things conclude: a) He who must restore to the heirs of the deceased cannot extinguish the debt by means of Masses paid for the favor of the deceased. Except if the consent of the heirs is truly presumed. Ami du Cl., 1913, p. 23.

b) If someone, with the owner being certain, should restore to the poor by counsel of a confessor, in the rigor of right he would not satisfy. Yet the holy Doctor (III, 704) does not dare to oblige him to restore again to the owner.

Things to be noted from civil law: 1. Payment made in good faith to him who possesses the title of the credit is valid, even if afterward the possessor of the credit suffers eviction.⁰¹ - 2. Payment made to a creditor who is incapable of receiving it, say a minor, one interdicted, etc., is null. Except, unless the debtor knows that the thing which he paid brought utility to the creditor.⁰²

998. II. If the injured owner is doubtful among several, according to the number of persons concerning whom there is doubt, it must either be divided among them, or restored to the poor, or to pious causes, or to citizens.

1. If the owner is doubtful among a few, three or four of some place, the thing or price must be divided among them, nor can it be given to the poor; because the owner ought not to be deprived of the hope which he has of recovering part of his thing. There can also be place for composition among all these.

2. If the owner, or the few owners who certainly have been defrauded, are doubtful among many, for example because they cannot be discerned among the inhabitants of a place, restitution is not necessarily to be made to the inhabitants of that place, but it suffices if it is made to any poor persons, or to pious causes.⁰³ The reason is that the thing very likely cannot arrive into the hands of its proper owner, or only in a very small portion (III, 589).

3. If many uncertain owners of some community have been damaged, restitution absolutely must be made to the citizens of this injured community, or at least to the poor.

a) It must be made to the citizens when this is morally possible, say if a merchant has defrauded many in weight or price, and can thereafter without infamy increase the weight or diminish the price toward ordinary buyers, who are presumed to have been defrauded. b) It must be made to the poor of the place, some reasonable cause acceding, say if someone cannot restore to the citizens without some notable inconvenience, or if the necessity of some who are very needy urges, to whom those citizens are presumed not to be unwilling that restitution be made (Praxis Conf., n. 41, 3).

999. III. If the owner is completely hidden or cannot be approached, another's thing can either be retained, or must be handed over wholly or in part to pious causes according to the diversity of circumstances.

1. If the thing was accepted in good faith, say if someone from inculpable error accepted more than was owed, it must be regarded as a thing found by chance. Wherefore, if the owner, moral diligence having been made, cannot be found, the thing can be retained, because it is regarded as abandoned (cf. St. Alph., III, 603). See the things said in n. 884 seqq.

2. If it was accepted in bad faith, or from delict, according to the common opinion it must be spent in alms or in other pious causes, for the salvation of the owner. For: a) such a thing cannot be retained, because no one ought to bring back advantage from his own malice; b) it must be spent on the poor or on pious causes, and not for another use, because such is presumed to be the will of the owner. Concerning this there is certainty from canon Law, as regards usurious and simoniacal gain; and general custom bears so, as regards other cases, which custom rests upon natural Law, as Lugo notes (disp. 21, n. 100). Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1216.⁰¹

3. If it was accepted in doubtful faith, then, while the doubt perseveres after due inquiry, it must partly be expended on pious causes, and can partly be retained (cf. nn. 945 and 946, 3). See the holy Doctor, III, 588; H. Ap., X, 64-70.

Things to be noted. a) If, the due diligence for finding the owner having been passed over, the thing has been spent on the poor, the damage must be repaired to the owner afterward appearing. Otherwise if, all circumstances being considered, it is prudently judged that it can no longer happen that the owner is found; because, in this case, the poor person acquires absolute ownership of the thing, without any burden of restitution (III, 589, 590).

b) If none of the owners, whether known or doubtful, was gravely injured, restitution must be made to them only under light sin, as is clear; but to the poor or to pious causes, under grave sin, because the whole damage inflicted on the community is grave, as is supposed (III, 534, q. 2).

c) If the thief himself or damager is poor, he can, from prudent estimation, apply to himself or to his family the restitution owed to the poor (Praxis Conf., n. 44, 3).

It is asked. To whom must a simple damager restore, if the owner who suffered the damage is unknown, or cannot be approached?

Resp. By fiction of right, a damager by that very fact becomes richer, because he retains something which because of the damaging he ought to pay. Therefore it seems that the same principles must be applied to him as to a thief who detains the thing of another. Hence, in the case, the damager must restore to the poor. Thus probably Lugo (disp. 21, n. 100) and others. Yet probable also is the opinion of those who say that in the case restitution must be made to no one: for the damager does not retain another's thing; besides, the obligation of restoring to pious causes is not altogether certainly imposed by natural law. See Aertnys, l. III, n. 346, q. 4.

N. B. Concerning composition with the Holy See over uncertain debts, see n. 1029.