Short answer. No. Article 1386 of the Civil Code bars rescission on lesion grounds for contracts that were approved by the courts. If a guardianship contract received court approval at the time, the lesion-based rescission grounds do not apply to it — the judicial approval is a complete defence against that kind of challenge.
What the law says
Rescission referred to in Nos. 1 and 2 of article 1381 shall not take place with respect to contracts approved by the courts.
Civil Code, Article 1386 — Court-Approved Contracts. Read the full provision →
What rescission for lesion means
Article 1381 of the Civil Code makes two categories of contracts rescissible on account of lesion — economic damage suffered by one of the protected parties. The first covers contracts entered into by guardians when the ward suffers lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the property involved. The second covers contracts made in representation of absent persons when the absentee suffers the same level of lesion. These provisions exist to protect wards and absentees from being disadvantaged by agreements their legal representatives make on their behalf.
The court-approval shield under Article 1386
Article 1386 creates an important limitation on both of those rescission grounds. If the contract was approved by the courts at the time it was entered into, the lesion-based rescission does not take place. The judicial approval substitutes for what the rescission remedy was meant to provide — independent scrutiny of whether the transaction was fair to the ward. Once a court already reviewed the transaction and authorised it, re-opening the same question through a rescission action would undermine the finality of judicial orders and the legal process built around guardianship proceedings.
Why court approval is decisive
Guardianship courts exist precisely to provide oversight of transactions involving the property of wards. A guardian who brings a proposed contract before the court and obtains approval has already exposed the transaction to independent judicial review. The court assessed whether the price was reasonable, whether the ward's interests were protected, and whether the deal should proceed. Allowing a later rescission on lesion grounds — when the court already looked at the transaction — would make that prior judicial process pointless and would create serious uncertainty for anyone who transacted with the guardian in reliance on the court's approval.
What this means if you are the other party to the contract
If you acquired property from a guardian through a court-approved transaction, Article 1386 protects you from a subsequent lesion-based rescission claim. Your best evidence is the court order approving the sale or other contract. Keep a certified copy of that order. If the ward or the ward's subsequent legal representative later challenges the transaction, point to the judicial approval as the complete answer to any rescission claim under Article 1381(1) or (2). Other grounds for challenge — such as fraud or absence of essential requisites — are a separate matter and are not barred by Article 1386.