Short answer. Yes. Article 1360 expressly adopts the principles of the general law on the reformation of instruments in the Philippines, subject to one limit: those principles apply only to the extent they are not in conflict with the Civil Code's own provisions on reformation. The Code's rules take precedence wherever they speak.
What the law says
The principles of the general law on the reformation of instruments are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Civil Code, Article 1360 — General Law on Reformation. Read the full provision →
What reformation of instruments is
Reformation is the remedy that corrects a written instrument when it fails to express the true agreement of the parties because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident. The document — the contract, the deed, the receipt — does not reflect what was actually agreed. The parties' real intention is valid and should be enforced, but the written form got it wrong. The Civil Code provides rules for when and how to seek reformation, and Article 1360 extends those rules by incorporating the general law on the subject wherever the Code is silent.
The gap-filling function of Article 1360
The Civil Code's provisions on reformation address specific scenarios — mutual mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, accident — but the circumstances in which an instrument may need correction are potentially varied. Article 1360 ensures that Philippine courts are not constrained to those enumerated situations alone. The principles of the general law on the reformation of instruments — developed in equity and in the practice of analogous legal systems — are available as supplementary authority for situations the Code did not specifically address.
The limit: no conflict with the Code
The adoption is conditional. A general law principle that directly contradicts a specific Civil Code rule on reformation cannot be applied. The Code's provisions come first; general principles fill gaps, they do not override express rules. Where the Code addresses a situation, a party cannot invoke a conflicting general principle to circumvent it. The question courts must ask is whether the Civil Code already answers the point — and if it does, the Code's answer prevails.
Reformation is not the same as interpretation or rescission
Reformation is a specific, narrow remedy. It corrects the written form to match the actual intent — it does not change the parties' agreement. It is also distinct from rescission: rescission ends the contract because something went wrong with its formation or performance; reformation preserves the contract but fixes its written expression. A party who wants the contract to say something different from what they actually agreed to cannot use reformation for that purpose. The remedy requires showing that the document departs from what both parties truly intended when they entered the agreement.