Short answer. Generally no. Article 1427 says that when a person between eighteen and twenty-one voluntarily pays a debt they took on without parental consent, they cannot recover it from a creditor who spent or consumed it in good faith. Note, though, that Republic Act No. 6809 lowered the age of majority to eighteen, so this window has largely closed.
What the law says
there shall be no right to recover the same from the obligee who has spent or consumed it in good faith
Civil Code, Article 1427 — Payment by a Minor 18-21. Read the full provision →
A natural obligation the payer chose to honour
Article 1427 deals with what the law calls a natural obligation — a duty a court will not force you to perform, but that the law still respects once you carry it out voluntarily. Its situation is a young person who entered a contract that needed a parent's or guardian's consent and did not have it, leaving the contract defective. If that young person then freely pays the money or delivers the fungible thing anyway, the law will not let him take it back. Having chosen to honour the obligation, he is bound by that choice rather than by any court compulsion.
No recovery once the creditor has spent it in good faith
The statute is specific about the limit of the rule. Where the young person voluntarily pays a sum of money or delivers a fungible thing in fulfillment of the obligation, there shall be no right to recover the same from the obligee who has spent or consumed it in good faith. Two conditions matter: the payment must be voluntary, not extracted by pressure or mistake; and the creditor must have received and used it in good faith. If both of those hold, the payment stands and cannot be undone, even though the underlying contract was originally defective for want of consent. The flip side matters just as much: if the young person was pressured into paying, or the creditor took the money in bad faith or still holds it unspent, the bar does not apply and recovery of what was paid may still be open.
Why the provision now has narrow reach
When the Civil Code was written, the age of majority was twenty-one, so people between eighteen and twenty-one were still minors who needed parental consent to contract. Republic Act No. 6809 later lowered the age of majority to eighteen. A person of eighteen today can generally contract on their own, so the specific gap Article 1427 addressed — an eighteen-to-twenty-one-year-old bound only by a natural obligation — has largely disappeared. The provision survives mainly as an illustration of how voluntarily honouring a natural obligation closes the door to recovering what was paid.