Short answer. No. Article 1031 makes a testamentary provision in favour of a disqualified person void even though made under the guise of an onerous contract, or made through an intermediary. Routing the gift through a third party does not rescue it, because the law asks who was actually meant to benefit.
What the law says
A testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified person, even though made under the guise of an onerous contract, or made through an intermediary, shall be void.
Civil Code, Article 1031 — Gifts to Disqualified Persons Are Void. Read the full provision →
The article names the two usual devices
Rather than stating a principle and leaving courts to apply it, the Code identifies the workarounds by name. A provision in favour of a disqualified person is void even though made under the guise of an onerous contract, or made through an intermediary. Those are the two ways a testator dresses up a gift he is not permitted to make: he can make it look like a bargain rather than a benefit, or he can direct it to someone who is allowed to receive it on the understanding that it will be passed along. The article closes both.
"Under the guise of an onerous contract"
A disposition can be made to look like an exchange — property left to a person in supposed settlement of a debt, or in return for services or a price that does not reflect what is being transferred. Dressed that way it reads as a transaction rather than a gift, and the incapacity appears not to arise. The article treats the label as irrelevant and looks at what is really happening. The question is not what the clause calls itself but whether, in substance, the estate is passing to someone the law says may not receive it.
The intermediary keeps nothing either
Where the will benefits a disqualified person through someone else, the article does not simply strip the arrangement of its conditions and let the named person keep the property. The provision itself is void, so the disposition fails and the property passes to whoever else is entitled — the other heirs under the will, or the heirs on intestacy where the will does not otherwise provide for it. A person asked to hold property for someone else under a will should understand that clearly before agreeing: the role carries no entitlement of its own.
Two things have to be established
First, that the intended beneficiary is in fact disqualified. Article 1031 does not itself say who is — that comes from the provisions on capacity to succeed, and identifying the specific ground that applies is the starting point rather than a detail. Second, that the arrangement is what you think it is, which is an evidentiary problem: the will rarely announces the plan, so it is drawn from the terms of the disposition, the relationship between the parties and what was said and done around the execution. Collect the will and the surrounding documents before making the allegation.