Short answer. It is voidable, not void. A contract signed under intimidation binds until a court annuls it, so you must act rather than simply ignore it. The threat must have created a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil — and a threat to sue on a just claim does not count.

What the law says

There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.

Civil Code, Article 1335 — Violence and Intimidation. Read the full provision →

What the law says

A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.

Civil Code, Article 1335 — Violence and Intimidation. Read the full provision →

What the law counts as intimidation

Article 1335 of the Civil Code sets a specific test: intimidation exists where a party is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants. Every adjective narrows it. The fear must be reasonable and grounded rather than merely felt, the evil must be imminent rather than distant, and it must be grave. The provision also protects against threats aimed at close family, not only at the signer himself. Violence, treated in the same article, is the cruder case: serious or irresistible force employed to wrest consent.

The exception that defeats most claims

Article 1335 ends with a sentence worth reading twice: A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. A creditor who says he will sue, foreclose or file a case unless he is paid is not intimidating anyone in the legal sense, provided the claim itself is legitimate. That covers a large share of the situations people describe as being forced to sign. The position changes where the claim threatened is baseless, or where the threat is of something the person has no right to do at all.

It binds until annulled, and the clock runs

A contract vitiated by intimidation is voidable under Article 1390, which means it produces effects and can be enforced against you until a court sets it aside. Two things follow. First, ratification is possible: performing the contract voluntarily once the threat has passed can confirm it and lose you the remedy. Second, Article 1391 allows four years to sue for annulment, counted in cases of violence, intimidation or undue influence from the time the defect of consent ceases — that is, from when the pressure ended, not from the day you signed.

What actually proves it

Intimidation is proved by circumstances rather than by the document, which will look ordinary. Useful material includes messages or recordings containing the threat, any report made at the time, the identity of anyone who witnessed the signing, medical or employment records showing the pressure, and evidence that the terms were plainly one-sided. Note also the date the threat stopped, because that is where the four-year period starts. Bring those to a lawyer before doing anything further under the contract, since continuing to perform it can be read as accepting it.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.