Short answer. Possibly yes. Article 1415 of the Civil Code lets the courts, where the interest of justice so demands, allow an incapacitated person — such as a minor — to recover money or property he delivered under an illegal contract. It is a discretionary exception to the usual rule that no one recovers under an illegal bargain.
What the law says
the courts may, if the interest of justice so demands allow recovery of money or property delivered by the incapacitated person
Civil Code, Article 1415 — Recovery by an Incapacitated Party. Read the full provision →
The rule this exception softens
The general principle for illegal contracts is harsh: where both parties are at fault, the law leaves them as it finds them, and neither can recover what he gave. The courts refuse to help either side untangle a bargain the law condemns. Article 1415 carves out a humane exception to that principle for one situation — where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent. A minor, or another person the law treats as legally incapacitated, is not held to the same accountability as a fully capable adult who knowingly entered an illegal deal. The article recognises that it would be unjust to strip someone of his money on the strength of an agreement he was not legally competent to make in the first place.
What the court may allow, and to whom
The article says the courts may, if the interest of justice so demands, allow recovery of money or property delivered by the incapacitated person. Three points follow from the wording. First, recovery runs in favour of the incapacitated party only — the capable party who dealt with him gets no such relief. Second, what can be recovered is what that person actually delivered, whether money or property. Third, the remedy is not automatic: the word "may" makes it discretionary, and it is conditioned on the interest of justice. The court weighs the circumstances and decides whether returning what the incapacitated person parted with is the fair result.
Why capacity changes the outcome
The reason the law treats the incapacitated party differently is that the bar on recovery rests on the idea that a person who freely joined an illegal scheme should bear the loss he helped create. That reasoning breaks down for someone who cannot give valid consent. A minor is not presumed to appreciate the illegality or to have chosen it with a free and informed will. So instead of punishing him with forfeiture, Article 1415 lets the court restore what he gave when justice calls for it. The provision protects the vulnerable party rather than rewarding the illegal contract itself — the contract stays illegal; only the incapacitated person is spared its ordinary consequences.
What this does not guarantee
Article 1415 is a door the court may open, not a right to a refund. Because recovery hinges on the interest of justice and on genuinely establishing that the party was incapable of giving consent, the outcome turns on the facts placed before the court. The article says nothing about how the incapacity is proved, how the property is valued if it has changed hands, or what happens to any benefit the incapacitated person actually received. Anyone hoping to rely on this provision — a parent or guardian acting for a minor, for instance — should take advice on how to present the case, since the relief is discretionary and never assured.