Short answer. No. Article 743 blocks exactly that scheme. Donations made to incapacitated persons are void even when disguised as another contract or routed through a person who is interposed. Putting the property in an intermediary's name to reach a disqualified recipient does not save the gift; the law sees through it and treats it as void.
What the law says
Donations made to incapacitated persons shall be void, though simulated under the guise of another contract or through a person who is interposed.
Civil Code, Article 743 — Donations To Incapacitated Persons Void. Read the full provision →
The law voids disguised gifts
Some people are legally incapacitated to receive a donation from a particular donor — the law disqualifies them for reasons of policy. Article 743 stops donors from evading that disqualification through clever structuring. It provides: Donations made to incapacitated persons shall be void, though simulated under the guise of another contract or through a person who is interposed. Two evasion routes are named and shut: dressing the gift up as some other contract, and channelling it through a middle person. Either way, if the property is really meant for the disqualified recipient, the donation is void.
The interposed person, or 'dummy'
The scheme in your question — putting the property in someone else's name to reach the disqualified person — is precisely the person who is interposed. The intermediary appears on paper as the donee, but is only a conduit; the true intended beneficiary is the incapacitated person behind them. The article treats substance over form. It does not matter that the paperwork names a qualified stand-in. Because the real object of the liberality is someone the law bars from receiving it, the arrangement is struck down as void, just as a direct donation to the disqualified person would be.
'Void' means it never took effect
Calling the donation void is significant. A void act produces no legal effect from the beginning; it is not merely voidable or subject to being cancelled later. It cannot be ratified into validity, and in principle it can be attacked by those with an interest in doing so. So the disguised donation does not transfer real, secure ownership to anyone as intended. The interposed person does not become the true owner of a valid gift, and the disqualified person gains nothing the law will recognise or protect through this route.
Why the prohibition exists
Disqualifications on receiving donations are deliberate — they guard against undue influence and protect interests the law considers important in the relationship between the parties. If a donor could sidestep them simply by using a friend's name or labelling the transfer a sale, the protection would be meaningless. Article 743 preserves it by reaching the disguised and the indirect as firmly as the direct. The practical lesson is that attempting to route a gift around a disqualification does not work; it produces a void transaction and can invite challenge rather than achieve the donor's aim.