Short answer. Yes, if that intent is clear. The default rule is that a void new obligation revives the old one, since there was no valid novation. But Article 1297 lets parties override that default by expressly agreeing the original debt dies regardless of what happens to the replacement arrangement, and courts will honor that clearly expressed intent.

What the law says

If the new obligation is void, the original one shall subsist, unless the parties intended that the former relation should be extinguished in any event.

Civil Code, Article 1297 — Void New Obligation. Read the full provision →

The Default Rule: No Novation, No Extinguishment

Novation requires a valid new obligation to replace the old one. If the substitute agreement turns out to be void, for lack of consent, an illegal object, or some other defect, there is nothing for the old obligation to be novated into, so Article 1297 says the original obligation simply survives. The debtor remains bound under the terms of the first agreement as if the failed replacement never happened.

The Exception Parties Can Build In

The article carves out one exception: the rule yields when the parties intended the old relation to end 'in any event,' meaning regardless of whether the new arrangement holds up. This is a matter of proven intent, not presumption; the general rule favors reviving the original debt, so a party wanting the opposite result needs the agreement itself, or the surrounding circumstances, to show that intent clearly and unmistakably.

Why This Comes Up in Settlements

Compromise or settlement agreements often replace a disputed or defaulted obligation with new payment terms. If that settlement is later voided, say for a defect in how it was executed, the question becomes whether the original debt comes back to life. Parties who intend finality either way, even if the settlement collapses, should state expressly that the original obligation is extinguished regardless of the settlement's validity.

Drafting to Avoid Ambiguity

Because courts default to reviving the old obligation absent clear proof of contrary intent, relying on implication is risky. A settlement, compromise, or restructuring agreement meant to permanently retire the original debt, win or lose on the new terms, should say so explicitly, rather than leaving the parties to litigate what they 'must have' intended if the new arrangement later falls apart. Courts scrutinize this kind of clause carefully, since parties sometimes assume finality without actually saying so, and vague language inviting multiple interpretations tends to be read against the party who drafted the agreement. If you are on the receiving end of a settlement and want certainty either way, ask directly during negotiations whether the old obligation is meant to survive a defect in the new one, and get the answer in writing rather than relying on what was discussed verbally.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.