Short answer. No, not anymore. Article 1317 makes an unauthorized contract ratifiable only before it is revoked by the other contracting party. Ratification and revocation are racing against each other, and once the other side has already backed out, that revocation closes the window; your later attempt to ratify comes too late.
What the law says
No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.
Civil Code, Article 1317 — Contracts in the Name of Another (Unauthorized). Read the full provision →
Why the contract was unenforceable to begin with
Article 1317 begins with a basic rule: no one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. Where someone signed in your name without that authority, the contract that resulted falls into a specific category the article creates — it is not automatically void, but it is unenforceable, meaning it cannot be enforced against you unless something more happens.
Ratification as the way to fix it
That 'something more' is ratification. The article provides that an unauthorized contract is unenforceable unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed. So you, as the person in whose name the contract was signed, have the power to step in afterward and adopt the contract as your own, either by an express statement to that effect or through conduct that implies you are accepting it, curing the original lack of authority.
The deadline built into the article: before revocation
But that power to ratify is not open-ended. The article attaches a specific limit: ratification must happen before it is revoked by the other contracting party. This sets up a race between two possible events — you ratifying the contract, or the other party revoking it — and whichever happens first determines the outcome. The article gives the person whose name was used a chance to save the contract, but only up until the other side pulls out.
What happens once the other party has revoked
Once the other contracting party has already revoked, that event has closed the window Article 1317 opens for ratification. Because the article conditions your ratification right on it happening before revocation, a revocation that has already occurred means there is nothing left for a later ratification to attach to under this provision — the contract remains unenforceable, and your attempt to ratify it now comes after the point the article allows for.
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.
- Republic of the Philippines, Represented By the Regional Director of the Department of Education, Region II vs. Grelinda D. Espejo, et al, G.R. No. 225722, April 26, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- La Filipina Uy Gongco Corporation vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, G.R. No. 229490, March 1,2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Guillerma S. Silva vs. Conchita S. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- San Miguel Foods, Inc. and James A. Vinoya vs. Ernesto Raoul V. Magtuto, G.R. No. 225007, July 24, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →