Short answer. Yes. The law treats a contract with no cause the same way it treats one with an unlawful cause: both produce no effect whatever, meaning the contract is void. It does not matter that nothing about your agreement is illegal — the complete absence of cause is, on its own, enough to void it.

What the law says

Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

Civil Code, Article 1352 — Contracts Without or With Unlawful Cause. Read the full provision →

Two separate ways a contract can fail on cause

The rule actually names two distinct defects, and it is worth telling them apart. One is a contract that has no cause at all — nothing was really given, done, or promised in exchange for what the other party is undertaking, even though the document might recite something on paper. The other is a contract that has a cause, but that cause is unlawful. Both are treated identically: each produces no effect whatever. Your situation, where nothing was actually exchanged or promised in return, falls in the first category, and the law does not require anything illegal to be present for that category to apply.

Why the total absence of cause is enough by itself

Cause is what each party is actually getting out of the agreement — the thing given, the service rendered, or the obligation assumed in return for the other side's undertaking. A contract is not a bare exchange of signatures; it needs a real reason each party is bound. Where that reason genuinely does not exist, the promise has nothing supporting it, and the law does not step in to enforce an obligation that was never really backed by anything. This is a separate defect from illegality — a contract can be perfectly legal in what it proposes to do and still fail for want of any real cause behind it.

That is why the statute does not condition voidness on wrongdoing. A contract failing for missing cause is not being punished; it simply never had the substance the law requires to hold a party to a promise.

What counts as an unlawful cause, for comparison

The second half of the rule addresses the other defect: a cause that exists but is unlawful, meaning it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. That situation is different from yours — there, something real was actually being exchanged, but the reason behind it was objectionable. Both defects lead to the same result, but they are proven differently: a missing cause is shown by demonstrating nothing of substance was actually given or promised, while an unlawful cause is shown by pointing to what was promised and explaining why it offends one of those five grounds.

What voidness for lack of cause means in practice

A contract that produces no effect whatever is treated as if it never created any binding obligation between the parties. Neither side can be compelled to perform it, and neither side can rely on it to claim rights against the other, precisely because the law does not recognize it as ever having taken legal effect. This is a stronger consequence than a mere irregularity that can be cured or waived — the defect goes to whether an enforceable agreement existed in the first place, not to some correctable flaw in an agreement that otherwise stands.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.