The discourse is (old and) always one: the "time" is what makes the difference.
Charles, Duke of Berry, had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain; nevertheless, right of succession it could have been disputed because interpreted by some as valid ONLY with an «immediate» renunciation of succession to the Spanish throne by Philip, Duke of Anjou (therefore the Duke of Berry would not have right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time).
At the same time, while Philip and his sons are alive, he does not have the right to succeed to the Crown of France (in THIS time!)
FIRST "time" discriminating: february-march 1712.
The death of Louis (XV) in february-march 1712, along with the rest of his immediate family, would changed the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (signed on 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» bla bla bla... ok. The Crown is not the personal property of the king: the king can not appoint his successor, or waive to the Crown, or abdicate.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible renunciation is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King by virtue of the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
The renunciation of Philip V of Spain: bla bla bla... (the renunciation, thus, is not legitimate, it can not have legal force. In France the renunciation is not became Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, because it was avoided to convene the Estates General to the ratified, deceiving the European diplomacy with a simple ratification by the Parliament of Paris (and of other provinces), which, as we know, was a "legal body", not "legislative". The ratification by the Parliament of Paris has a only mere value notarial. Philip V has never recognized the validity of renunciation signed under duress of the England: as a matter of fact, in 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, by being he his successor to the crown by right of birth and by means the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom»).
In this hypothesis,
the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would could to be different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he would have to abdicate the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).
SECOND "time" discriminating: March 1713 (Treaty of Utrecht signed on 11 April 1713).
In Spain the Philip V's renunciations were made Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by the same sovereign who convoked specifically for this the Cortes in March 1713. This means that, according to the spanish principles of legitimacy, no member of the descendants of Philip V has the right to the Throne of France.
If the renunciation was not declared Fundamental Law of the Kingdom, it could have been considered invalid the renunciation; but a Fundamental Law can be repealed only by the King and the Cortes.
Scilicet: in Spain only the King and the Cortes can cancel the renunciation allowing to a descendant of Philip V to claim the throne of France: by means of a dispensation from the King and the Cortes, an Infante (descendant of Philip V) could claim the throne of France (for this reason the Crown of France, in last nineteenth century,
it's up indisputably and unquestionably to the Orléans; with the distinction between "famille et maison" (family and House) and "Couronne" (Crown): there is a clear distinction between the role of heir to the role of "Head of the House" and heir to the French throne).