Short answer. The burden of proof shifts. Where a party could not read the contract or it was in a language he did not understand, and mistake or fraud is alleged, Article 1332 makes the person enforcing the agreement show that its terms were fully explained. He must prove it; the signer need not disprove it.
What the law says
When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.
Civil Code, Article 1332 — Burden Where a Party Cannot Read. Read the full provision →
The ordinary rule, and why this article departs from it
Normally a person who signs a document is taken to have read and accepted it, and anyone attacking the agreement carries the burden of proving what went wrong. Article 1332 reverses that in one situation: When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. The reason is practical. A signature means very little as evidence of agreement when the signer had no access to what he was agreeing to.
Who it covers is wider than it first appears
The article reaches two groups. The first is a party unable to read at all. The second is anyone for whom the contract is in a language not understood by him — which in this country routinely includes documents drafted in technical English signed by people whose working language is not English. It is not confined to the illiterate, and it is not confined to the poor. What matters is whether this signer could actually understand this document. A person fluent in conversation may still be unable to follow a page of contractual terms.
The protection is triggered by an allegation, and it is not automatic
Two conditions have to be met before the burden shifts. First, mistake or fraud must be alleged — the article does not make every contract signed by a non-reader invalid, and a party who understood the bargain perfectly well cannot use his language as a later exit. Second, once the allegation is made, the party seeking to enforce must show the terms were fully explained. Fully is a demanding word. Showing that someone handed over the document, or that a signature appears above a printed line saying the terms were understood, is not the same as showing that the terms were explained.
How the point is usually proved or lost
Because the burden lies on the enforcing party, the useful evidence is his: a translated copy, a witness who explained the document, an interpreter's involvement, notes made at the signing, or a version of the contract in a language the signer reads. Where none of that exists, the enforcing party is in difficulty. On the signer's side, the material worth gathering is what shows the gap — schooling, working language, the setting in which the signature was taken, and how long he was given with the document.
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.
- Spouses Eugenio De Vera and Rosalia Padilla vs. Fausta Catungal, subsituted by her heirs, G.R. No. 211687, February 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lina Calilap-Asmeron vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 157330, November 23, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Redentor Catapang and Casiana Catapang Garbin vs. Lipa Bank, G.R. No. 240645, January 27, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Amparo S. Cruz, et al. vs. Angelito S. Cruz, et al, G.R. No. 211153, February 28, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1332 — Burden Where a Party Cannot Read
- Civil Code, Article 1330 — Vices of Consent
- Civil Code, Article 1338 — Fraud (Dolo Causante)