Short answer. No. Article 1395 of the Civil Code states that ratification does not require the conformity of the contracting party who has no right to bring the action for annulment. Only the party entitled to seek annulment needs to ratify — the other party has no say in whether ratification occurs.
What the law says
Ratification does not require the conformity of the contracting party who has no right to bring the action for annulment.
Civil Code, Article 1395 — No Need for the Other Party's Consent. Read the full provision →
What Article 1395 provides
Article 1395 of the Civil Code lays down a straightforward rule: "Ratification does not require the conformity of the contracting party who has no right to bring the action for annulment." In a voidable contract, only certain parties are entitled to seek annulment — typically the party who was a minor, was under a defect of consent such as fraud or mistake, or lacked legal capacity at the time of contracting. It is that party, and that party alone, who has the power to ratify. The other party — who cannot annul — has no vote in the decision.
Who can and cannot seek annulment
Voidable contracts are defective but binding until annulled. The right to annul belongs to the injured party: for example, the minor who entered the contract, the person whose consent was obtained through fraud or intimidation, or the person who was legally incapacitated. The other contracting party — the one who benefited from the contract without suffering the defect — has no standing to annul it. Article 1395 flows from this asymmetry: ratification is the mirror image of annulment, so the party who cannot annul cannot ratify either. The right to validate the contract rests with the same party who holds the right to challenge it.
Effect of ratification on the voidable contract
Once the party entitled to annul chooses instead to ratify — whether expressly or by conduct such as continuing to perform under the contract — the voidable contract is cleansed of its defect. It becomes fully valid and enforceable, and the right to seek annulment is extinguished. This happens as a result of the ratifying party's act alone. The other party's silence, disagreement, or even active objection to ratification is legally irrelevant. The law does not allow the party who had no right to annul to block the party who did from choosing to keep the contract alive.
Practical significance
This rule matters in situations where the parties have a dispute about the contract's validity. Suppose one party claims the contract should be annulled — perhaps because a co-contractor or family member is unhappy with the arrangement — but the party who actually suffered the defect wishes to continue with the deal. The other contracting party cannot prevent ratification, cannot demand that their agreement is needed, and cannot use their objection to unravel a contract the injured party has freely chosen to affirm. The decision to ratify belongs solely to the one who bore the legal defect.