Short answer. Yes. Article 1492 extends the earlier bans beyond ordinary sales. It provides that the prohibitions in the two preceding articles are applicable to sales in legal redemption, compromises and renunciations. So the people forbidden to buy certain property, such as guardians, agents, executors, judges and lawyers, cannot get around the ban through these other transactions.
What the law says
The prohibitions in the two preceding articles are applicable to sales in legal redemption, compromises and renunciations.
Civil Code, Article 1492 — Prohibitions Extend to Redemption/Compromise. Read the full provision →
The ban cannot be dodged by relabeling the deal
Article 1492 closes a loophole. The Civil Code forbids certain people from buying property connected to a position of trust they hold; the classic examples are a guardian buying the ward's property, an agent buying what he was to sell, an executor or administrator buying estate property, and judges and lawyers acquiring property in litigation before them. Article 1492 then says: the prohibitions in the two preceding articles are applicable to sales in legal redemption, compromises and renunciations. The point is that the ban follows the substance, not the label. You cannot acquire the forbidden property by dressing the acquisition up as a redemption, a settlement, or a waiver rather than a sale.
Why redemptions, compromises and renunciations are named
These three are singled out because each is a way property changes hands that is not, on its face, a plain sale, and so might tempt someone to argue the purchase ban does not reach it. A legal redemption lets a person step in and take property by paying the price; a compromise settles a dispute, often by one side taking or keeping property; a renunciation is a giving-up of a right that can pass value to another. In each, a person the law distrusts near certain property could end up owning it. Article 1492 says the same disqualification applies, so the roundabout route is blocked.
Who and what the prohibitions protect
The prohibitions exist to prevent conflicts of interest and self-dealing by people the law places in positions of confidence or authority over property or proceedings. A guardian, agent or executor manages property for someone else; a judge or a lawyer is bound to serve the administration of justice, not to profit from the very property in dispute. Letting them buy would set their private gain against the duty they owe. By extending the ban to redemptions, compromises and renunciations, Article 1492 keeps the protection intact across the whole range of ways such a person might otherwise acquire what they are forbidden to buy outright.
What breach of the ban costs
Acquisitions made in violation of these prohibitions are not treated as valid, ordinary purchases; depending on which prohibition is broken, the transaction can be void or voidable, and the disqualified person can be made to give the property up. That exposure is the reason the extension matters: a guardian or lawyer who thinks a compromise or a redemption is a safe way to end up owning the property is mistaken, and the deal can be undone later, sometimes at the instance of the very person the rule protects. Anyone in a position of trust who is tempted to acquire property in their charge should assume Article 1492 reaches the transaction.