Short answer. Generally, no. A compromise tainted by mistake is ordinarily voidable, but the Civil Code specifically blocks a party from raising a mistake of fact once the other side has already withdrawn from litigation in reliance on that compromise. Having relied on the settlement to drop the case, that party is protected from your mistake claim.
What the law says
one of parties cannot set up a mistake of fact as against the other if the latter, by virtue of the compromise, has withdrawn from a litigation already commenced
Civil Code, Article 2038 — Vitiated Compromise. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A compromise in which there is mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents, is subject to the provisions of article 1330 of this Code
Civil Code, Article 2038 — Vitiated Compromise. Read the full provision →
Compromises can normally be attacked for mistake
A compromise agreement is a contract, and like any contract, it can be undermined by defects in the consent that formed it. The Civil Code says a compromise tainted by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents is subject to the same rules that apply to ordinary voidable contracts: consent given through mistake, among other vices, makes a contract voidable rather than automatically void. That would normally open the door to setting the compromise aside if you can show your consent was based on a genuine mistake of fact.
The specific exception that applies here
The same provision carves out exactly your situation. One party cannot set up a mistake of fact against the other if that other party, by virtue of the compromise, has already withdrawn from a litigation already commenced. Since the other side dropped their lawsuit specifically because of your settlement, the law treats that reliance as something worth protecting. Letting you unwind the deal afterward on a mistake-of-fact theory would leave them stuck without either the compromise or the lawsuit they gave up to get it, which is precisely the outcome this exception prevents.
What is, and is not, still available to you
This exception is narrow: it blocks a mistake of fact argument specifically, once the other party has withdrawn from commenced litigation because of the compromise. It does not, on its face, close off the other listed grounds, such as fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents, if any of those genuinely applies to how your consent was obtained. Whether any of those grounds fits your facts is a separate question from the mistake-of-fact route, which this specific circumstance forecloses.
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.
- Domingo Realty, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126236, January 26, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equitable PCI Banking Corporation vs. RCBC Capital Corporation, G.R. No. 182248, December 18, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca vs. Hon. Rebecca r. Mariano Pres. Judge etc, et al, G.R. No. 171698, July 4, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Wilfredo and Swarnie Aromin vs. Paulo Floresca, et al, G.R. No. 160994, July 27, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →