Short answer. No. Impossible things or services cannot be the object of contracts, so an agreement whose subject was already impossible when it was made has no valid object and is void from the beginning. Nobody can be compelled to perform it, and nobody can sue on it for damages for non-performance.
What the law says
Impossible things or services cannot be the object of contracts.
Civil Code, Article 1348 — Impossible Things or Services. Read the full provision →
Why impossibility destroys the contract
Every contract needs three things: consent, an object certain, and a cause. The object is what is being promised — the thing to be given or the act to be done. If that object cannot exist or cannot be done at all, the requirement is not merely unmet, it cannot be met, and the agreement fails for want of an essential element. The consequence is that the contract is void, not merely voidable: it produces no obligations, it does not need to be annulled by anyone, either party may treat it as a nullity, and the passage of time does not cure it. Anything already paid under it is recoverable, since there was no valid cause for keeping it.
Absolute impossibility, not mere difficulty
The bar is high, and this is where most arguments fail. What the law means is impossibility for anyone, not impossibility for this particular debtor. A promise to deliver goods that no longer exist, to convey property that cannot lawfully be conveyed, or to perform an act contrary to the nature of things is impossible. A promise that has merely become expensive, inconvenient, unprofitable or beyond the promisor's own skill and resources is not — it is a burden he took on, and he answers for it in damages if he cannot deliver. A shortage of money, in particular, is never treated as impossibility; the obligation simply stands unpaid.
Legal impossibility and partial impossibility
Impossibility is not only physical. A service that the law forbids, or a thing that is outside the commerce of man and so cannot be the subject of private dealings, is impossible in the legal sense even though it is physically achievable. That is why undertakings to procure an outcome only a public authority may grant, or to transfer what cannot be privately owned, collapse. Where only part of what was promised is impossible, the contract does not automatically fall entirely; a divisible agreement may stand as to the possible part, depending on whether the parties would have contracted at all without the failed portion. Whether it is severable is judged from the agreement as a whole.
Impossible when made, versus impossible later
The timing is decisive and is frequently confused. This article deals with an object that was already impossible when the contract was made. Where performance was possible at the outset and only later became impossible — the specific thing is destroyed without the debtor's fault, or a new law forbids the act — the contract was validly born, and the question becomes whether the obligation is extinguished, and who bears the loss. Those are different rules with different outcomes, including the debtor's liability if he was already in delay or was himself at fault. Before you write off or enforce a deal on this ground, gather the documents fixing what was promised and when, and book a consultation.