Short answer. No. Article 1344 of the Civil Code distinguishes between serious and incidental fraud. Only fraud serious enough to have caused you to sign — causal fraud — makes a contract voidable. Incidental fraud, which would not have changed your decision, only entitles you to damages, not annulment.
What the law says
Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages.
Civil Code, Article 1344 — Causal vs. Incidental Fraud. Read the full provision →
Two kinds of fraud, two different consequences
Article 1344 of the Civil Code draws a sharp line between two categories of fraud. Causal fraud is fraud that was serious enough and significant enough that, without it, you would not have entered into the contract. This kind of fraud makes the contract voidable — you may annul it and be restored to your prior position. Incidental fraud is a lie about something that did not ultimately determine whether you signed. You would have entered the contract anyway, even knowing the truth. This kind only gives rise to a claim for damages; the contract itself stands.
The test: would you have signed without the lie?
The question that determines which category applies is practical and honest: would you have signed the contract even if the other party had told you the truth? If the answer is yes — as you indicate — then the fraud is incidental. It was a lie, and lying is wrong, but the lie did not cause the contract. Your consent existed independently of the misrepresentation. You signed because the overall deal was acceptable, and the false detail would not have changed that conclusion. Article 1344 restricts annulment to fraud that actually caused the contract.
The fraud must also not be mutual
Article 1344 adds a further limitation: to make a contract voidable for fraud, the fraud must not have been employed by both contracting parties. If both sides engaged in deception, neither can use the other's fraud as a ground for annulment. This prevents parties from invoking fraud cynically after the fact when they were themselves acting in bad faith. In your situation, however, the mutual-fraud exclusion does not appear to be an issue — the fraud was on the other party's side only.
Your remedy: damages instead of annulment
You may not annul the contract, but you are not left without a remedy. Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages. If you suffered actual harm — a loss in value, an expense you incurred because of the lie, or any other concrete detriment — you may claim those damages from the other party. The measure of damages will depend on what you actually lost because of the misrepresentation, not the full value of the contract. A lawyer can help you assess what you are entitled to and whether pursuing that claim is practical given the circumstances.
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.
- Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. vs. Spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano, G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 191174, June 7, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nenita Carganillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Carmen Tongson and Jose Tongson vs. Emergency Pawnshop Bula, Inc. et al, G.R. No. 167874, January 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →