Short answer. No. Article 1412 of the Civil Code says that when both contracting parties are at fault in an illegal, non-criminal contract, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand performance of the other's undertaking. Both sides are left where the illegal transaction put them.
What the law says
When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other's undertaking
Civil Code, Article 1412 — In Pari Delicto: Non-Criminal. Read the full provision →
Why mutual fault changes the outcome
Article 1412 governs contracts with an unlawful or forbidden cause where the underlying act is not a criminal offense, and it treats mutual fault very differently from one-sided fault. Where the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, the article says neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other's undertaking. Because you both knowingly entered the illegal arrangement, the law does not sort out whose conduct was worse; it simply denies relief to both sides equally.
What neither may recover means for what you delivered
This rule means that whatever you handed over under the illegal contract generally stays where it landed. You cannot use the courts to demand it back from the other party, and by the same token, the other party cannot demand that you complete your side of the bargain either. The law essentially leaves both parties in the position the illegal transaction left them, declining to assist either one in undoing or completing what was, from the start, an unlawful arrangement between you.
This differs sharply from one-sided fault
Article 1412 draws a real contrast with the situation where only one party is at fault: there, the party not at fault may demand the return of what he has given, without being obligated to perform his own promise, while the party at fault gets nothing back. That more favorable outcome depends specifically on fault being one-sided. Because you have described both of you as knowingly entering the illegal contract together, that more forgiving branch of the article does not apply to your situation.
Why the law takes this approach with mutual fault
This rule reflects a broader principle that courts will not assist parties who are equally responsible for an unlawful transaction, rather than trying to referee between two parties who both knowingly did something the law forbids. Since Article 1412 denies recovery to both sides where fault is mutual, knowingly participating in an illegal, non-criminal arrangement carries a real risk that whatever you gave under it simply cannot be recovered through the courts, regardless of how the other party later behaves.
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 →