Short answer. Yes. Article 2017 extends the gambling rules to people who bet on a game of chance although they take no active part in it. So a bettor is treated like a player: under Article 2014 any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal interest from the time he paid.
What the law says
The provisions of article 2014 and 2016 apply when two or more persons bet in a game of chance, although they take no active part in the game itself
Civil Code, Article 2017 — Bettors on a Game of Chance. Read the full provision →
What the law says
any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal interest from the time he paid the amount lost
Civil Code, Article 2014 — No Recovery of Gambling Winnings. Read the full provision →
A bettor counts the same as a player
You do not have to sit at the table to be covered. Article 2017 says The provisions of article 2014 and 2016 apply when two or more persons bet in a game of chance, although they take no active part in the game itself. The person who merely wagers on the outcome of a game of chance is treated exactly as the law treats the players — the same right to recover, the same route through which a dependant may sue if he will not. So placing a bet without playing does not push you outside the protection; it puts you squarely inside it.
What the borrowed rule actually gives you
The rule you inherit is a generous one. Article 2014 provides that any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal interest from the time he paid the amount lost, and subsidiarily from the operator or manager of the gambling house. Two features stand out. The winner has no answering right — he cannot sue to collect what he won — so the recovery runs one way only, in the loser's favour. And the sum carries legal interest from the date you paid, not merely from the date you sue, so delay does not quietly erode the claim.
"No active part" is the whole point
The phrase although they take no active part in the game itself is what makes the article useful. It reaches the side-bettor, the onlooker who wagers on who will win, the group who stake money on a game others are playing. Their non-participation, which might have looked like a reason to leave them out, is expressly no obstacle. The law's concern is the wager and the loss it produces, not whether the person who made it also dealt the cards, so a bet lost on a game of chance is recoverable whether you played or only backed a player.
The limit worth knowing
One boundary controls all of this: the game must be one of chance. The whole scheme — winnings uncollectable, losses recoverable, bettors included — applies to games where chance predominates, and in a doubtful case the law presumes chance. A genuine game of skill is a different matter and does not draw in these rights. So before relying on Article 2017, be clear that what you bet on really was a game of chance, because that classification, not the fact that you only watched and wagered, is what decides whether the loss comes back.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2017 — Bettors on a Game of Chance
- Civil Code, Article 2014 — No Recovery of Gambling Winnings