VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no
damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are
susceptible of ratification. (n)
Voidable Contracts.
Those which possesses all the essential requisites of a valid contract but one of the parties is incapable of
giving consent, or consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. A
contract is voidable because of the defective or vitiated consent. Damage is not required in order to make
a contract voidable.Another instance of a voidable contract is a contract where consent to it is given in a
state of drunkenness or under hypnotic spell (article 1348 supra)
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS intrinsic defect; valid until annulled; defect is due to vice of consent or legal
incapacity
CHARACTERISTICS:
a. Effective until set aside
b. May be assailed or attacked only in an action for that purpose
c. Can be confirmed ( Note: CONFIRMATION IS THE PROPER TERM FOR CURING THE DEFECT
OF A VOIDABLE CONTRACT)
d. Can be assailed only by the party whose consent was defective or his heirs or assigns
WHAT CONTRACTS ARE VOIDABLE:
a. THOSE WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES IS INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT TO A
CONTRACT (legal incapacity)
(1) minors ( below 18 )
(2) insane unless acted in lucid interval
(3) deaf mute who cant read or write
(4) persons specially disqualified: civil interdiction
(5) in state of drunkenness
(6) in state of hypnotic spell
BASIS
1. Nature of Defect

VOIDABLE
CONTRACT
Defect is intrinsic.
There is a vice of
consent which vitiates
consent

VOID CONTRACT
Consent is absent or is
lacking. Presence of
other defects will also
render a contract void

RESCISSIBLE
CONTRACT
Defect is external. It
consists in damage or
prejudice suffered by
one of the contracting

(Art. 1409)
2. Effect of damage
or prejudice
3. Basis of defect

Whether there is
damage or not, contract
is voidable.
Annulability of the
contract is based on
law

4. Predominance of
Public interest
5. Susceptibility to
Ratification
6. Sanction

Public interest
Predominates
It is susceptible to
Ratification
It is sanction

7. Person who can

assail contact

Only parties to the

contract can assail it.

8. Nature of action
pursuable
9. Susceptibility to
consolidation

Action is a principal
action
Susceptible to
consolidation by
ratification or
prescription
Action for annulment
prescribes

10. Prescriptibility of
action for its
attack

11. Waiver of defect

Case: G.R. No. 207176

Defect may be waived

No legal effect or
binding effect.
Contract is made in
contrary to law, public
order, public policy and
good customs
It is not a sanction but
a remedy
Third person and
parties to the contract
can assail it.
Not susceptible to
consolidation by
ratification or by
prescription (art. 1409).
Action or defense
based on its in
existence or absolute
nullity does not
prescribe (art. 1410)
Right to set up the
defense of illegality
cannot be waive (art.
1409, last par.).

parties or a third person

like a creditor.
If there is no damage or
prejudice, contract
cannot be rescissible
Rescissibility of the
contract is based on
equity.
Private interest
Predominates
Not susceptible to
Ratification
It is not a sanction but a
remedy
Third person who are
affected may assail it.
Action is subsidiary
-

When the defect is

rectify.

June 18, 2014

SPOUSES VICTOR and EUNA BINUA, Petitioners,

vs
LUCIA P. ONG, Respondent.
Facts:
Spouses Victor and Edna Binua (petitioners) seek the declaration of the nullity of the real estate
mortgages executed by petitioner Victor in favor of Lucia P. Ong (respondent), on the ground that these
were executed under fear, duress and threat.

Issue: Whether the court erred in declaring null and void the mortgage contracts finding that said
contracts were executed under fear, duress and threat.
Held:
The Court held that in order that intimidation may vitiate consent and render the contract invalid, the
following requisites must concur: (1) that the intimidation must be the determining cause of the contract,
or must have caused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the
threat be real and serious, there being an evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which
all men can offer, leading to the choice of the contract as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a
reasonable and well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary
means or ability to inflict the threatened injury.
Article 1390(2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts where the consent is vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud are voidable or annullable. Article 1335 of the Civil
Code, meanwhile, states that "[t]here is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a
reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the
person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent." The same article,
however, further states that "[a] threat to enforce ones claim through competent authority, if the claim is
just or legal, does not vitiate consent.
G.R. No. 139982

November 21, 2002

JULIAN FRANCISCO ET AL
vs
PASTOR HERRERA, respondent.
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated August 30, 1999,
in CA-G.R. CV No. 47869, which affirmed in toto the judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Antipolo City, Branch 73, in Civil Case No. 92-2267. The appellate court sustained the trial courts ruling
which: (a) declared null and void the deeds of sale of the properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0100495 and 01-00497; and (b) directed petitioner to return the subject properties to respondent who, in
turn, must refund to petitioner the purchase price of P1,750,000.
Issue: Whether the court ignored the basic difference between void and merely voidable contract missing
on essential element of the contract.
Held:
The court held, if an insane or demented person does enter into a contract, the legal effect is that the
contract is voidable or annullable as specifically provided in Article 1390. In the present case, it was
established that the vendor Eligio, Sr. entered into an agreement with petitioner, but that the formers
capacity to consent was vitiated by senile dementia. Hence, we must rule that the assailed contracts are
not void or inexistent per se; rather, these are contracts that are valid and binding unless annulled through
a proper action filed in court seasonably.

Bibliography:
D. Jurado, (2010) COMMENTS and JURISPRUDENCE on OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS Manila:
REX Book Store
E. Paras, (2012) Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated. Manila: REX Book Store.
H. De leon (2014) OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS, Manila: REX Book Store