Short answer. Yes. Article 1412 of the Civil Code lets the party who was not at fault in an illegal, non-criminal contract demand the return of what he gave, without any obligation to fulfill his own promise, while the party at fault cannot recover anything he delivered or demand performance.
What the law says
When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, he cannot recover what he has given by reason of the contract, or ask for the fulfillment of what has been promised him. The other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has given without any obligation to comply his promise.
Civil Code, Article 1412 — In Pari Delicto: Non-Criminal. Read the full provision →
Why fault determines the outcome
Article 1412 addresses contracts with an unlawful or forbidden cause where the underlying act is not a criminal offense. It splits the outcome sharply depending on who was at fault. When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, that article says he cannot recover what he has given by reason of the contract, or ask for fulfillment of what was promised him. The consequence falls specifically on the party responsible for the illegality, not evenly on both sides of the transaction.
What the non-fault party is entitled to
The flip side is what matters to you if the fault genuinely was the other party's: Article 1412 says the other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has given without any obligation to comply with his own promise. This means you can seek back whatever you delivered under the illegal contract, and you are not required to hold up your own end of the bargain in exchange, since you were not the one responsible for the contract's illegality.
This differs from when both parties are at fault
Article 1412 draws this rule against the alternative it also states: when the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given, nor demand performance from the other. The favorable treatment for the non-fault party under this article depends specifically on the fault genuinely lying with only the other side; if both of you contributed to the illegality, the outcome is very different, and neither side can recover anything at all from the other.
What establishing this actually requires
Because the outcome turns entirely on who was at fault for the illegal or forbidden cause, being able to show that the illegality originated with the other party, and that you did not know of or participate in it, is central to relying on this provision. This is a fact-specific inquiry into what each party knew and did in connection with the illegal cause, rather than something that follows automatically just because one side later claims to have been unaware of the illegality.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Hiers of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al./Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al, G.R. No. 165748 / G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose Menchavez, et al. vs. Florentino Teves Jr, G.R. No. 153201, January 26, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Desiderio Ranara, Jr. vs. Zacarias De Los Angeles, Jr, G.R. No. 200765, August 8, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Oscar Constantino, et al. vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., rep. by Asuncion Laquindanum, G.R. No. 181508, October 2, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →