Short answer. No. Article 1402 of the Civil Code makes mutual restitution reciprocal: as long as you have not returned what you received under the annulled contract, you cannot compel the other party to return what they received. Both obligations must be fulfilled — neither party can insist on going first.
What the law says
As long as one of the contracting parties does not restore what in virtue of the decree of annulment he is bound to return, the other cannot be compelled to comply with what is incumbent upon him.
Civil Code, Article 1402 — Mutual Restitution Is Reciprocal. Read the full provision →
The rule of reciprocity in annulment
When a contract is annulled, both parties are ordinarily required to restore what they received from each other — returning the parties to the position they were in before the contract. Article 1402 of the Civil Code governs the order of these obligations: neither party can demand that the other restore first while they themselves refuse to do so. The article is clear: as long as one of the contracting parties does not restore what in virtue of the decree of annulment he is bound to return, the other cannot be compelled to comply.
What this means in practice
If you are holding on to what you received — and have not yet restored it — you have no legal basis to go to court and demand that the other party give back what they received first. The law treats your obligation and their obligation as equally binding and equally immediate. You cannot sequence them to your advantage by demanding that the other party move first. The practical outcome is that both obligations must be discharged simultaneously or through a mechanism that ensures neither party is left holding nothing while the other still has what they received.
Why the law takes this approach
The reciprocity rule prevents one party from using the annulment process to enrich themselves at the other's expense. Without this rule, a party could demand the return of what they gave, pocket it, and then continue to hold onto what they received — leaving the other party with nothing. By tying the two obligations together, Article 1402 ensures that the restoration process is a genuine mutual unwinding of the transaction, not an opportunity for one party to gain at the other's expense.
Resolving the standoff
If both parties are waiting for the other to go first, the practical resolution is to agree on simultaneous exchange or to ask the court to order a coordinated restoration. Courts handling annulment proceedings can supervise the mutual return of what was received, ensuring both parties perform at the same time. If you genuinely intend to restore your side but are concerned about the other party's good faith, bringing the matter to court with an offer to restore simultaneously is the appropriate path forward. A lawyer can help you structure this effectively.