Short answer. No. Article 1397 of the Civil Code bars the very person who employed fraud, intimidation, violence, undue influence, or caused a mistake from using those same flaws as the basis for an annulment action. The wrongdoer cannot profit from their own wrong by invoking the harm they created.
What the law says
those who exerted intimidation, violence, or undue influence, or employed fraud, or caused mistake base their action upon these flaws of the contract.
Civil Code, Article 1397 — Who May Sue for Annulment. Read the full provision →
Who may file for annulment
Article 1397 sets the general rule first: the action for annulment of contracts may be instituted by all who are thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily. The wronged party — the one who was defrauded, threatened, or misled — has standing to seek annulment. So does anyone bound by the contract as a guarantor or surety. The law gives the remedy to those who were harmed by the defect in consent.
The prohibition on the wrongdoer
Then Article 1397 carves out a clear prohibition. The person who exerted intimidation, violence, or undue influence, or employed fraud, or caused mistake cannot base an annulment action on those same flaws. If you tricked the other party into signing, or threatened them, or manipulated the situation so they made a mistake — you cannot then turn around and ask the court to annul the contract on the very ground you yourself created. This prevents the wrongdoer from using the law as a tool to undo obligations they find inconvenient after using misconduct to obtain the contract.
A separate rule for incapacity
Article 1397 also addresses a different scenario: a person who is capable cannot invoke the incapacity of the person they contracted with. If you are an adult contracting with a minor, you cannot later annul the contract on the ground that the minor was incapacitated — that protection belongs to the minor, not to you. This closes a door that an unscrupulous party might otherwise use to escape a bad deal by claiming the other side lacked capacity.
Why this rule matters in practice
The rule in Article 1397 reflects a basic principle: the annulment remedy exists to protect victims of defective consent, not to arm wrongdoers with an escape hatch. If you believe you are the victim of fraud in a contract, you have standing to seek annulment. If the other side is the one who used fraud and is now claiming the contract should be annulled, Article 1397 is a defense against that action. How the facts are framed matters — what each party did and who made what representations is the core of the dispute. A lawyer's assessment of how Article 1397 applies to your specific situation is essential before any legal action is filed.
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.
- Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation vs. Lourdes Estudillo Paez-Cline alias Lourdes Paez-Villa, et, G.R. No. 217148, December 7, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Allan Mañas, joined by wife Lena Isabelle Y. Mañas vs. Rosalina Roca Nicolasora, et, G.R. No. 208845, February 3, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Teodulfo E. Lao, Jr. vs. Lgu of Cagayan De Oro City, G.R. No. 187869, September 13, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →