Short answer. Not unless you ratify it. Article 1317 makes a contract entered into in the name of another, by one who had no authority or who acted beyond his powers, unenforceable — unless the person on whose behalf it was executed ratifies it, expressly or impliedly, before the other party revokes.

What the law says

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 →

Unenforceable, which is not the same as void

The distinction matters more than it sounds. A void contract is a nullity nothing can save. An unenforceable one exists but cannot be enforced against you — and it can be cured, by your own ratification. The article also gives the other side a way out: the counterparty may revoke before you ratify, since he too was dealing with someone who had no business speaking for you. So the contract sits in suspense, and whichever of you moves first decides what becomes of it. Doing nothing at all leaves it hanging.

Ratification can happen without a word

Because the article accepts ratification that is impliedly given, conduct can bind you as effectively as a signature. Accepting the price, cashing the cheque, allowing the buyer to take possession, collecting rent under the lease, or simply performing the agreement once you know of it can all be read as adopting it. That is the practical warning. If you have received something under a contract you did not authorise, do not use it and do not spend it — say so in writing to the other party, and offer to return whatever came to you.

Where the signer was your agent

If you did appoint the person but he went past his instructions, Article 1910 is the starting point: the principal must comply with obligations the agent contracted within the scope of his authority, and is not bound as to those in which the agent exceeded his power except when he ratifies expressly or tacitly. But Article 1911 is the trap. Even where the agent exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with him if he allowed the agent to act as though he had full powers. Appearances you created can bind you even where the actual instructions did not.

A forged signature is a different problem

Article 1317 addresses somebody purporting to act for you. Where a signature was simply forged, nobody was representing anyone — you gave no consent at all, and Article 1318 makes consent an essential requisite without which there is no contract. That version carries criminal exposure for whoever made the document and usually calls for a different response: secure the original instrument, obtain specimen signatures, write to the counterparty and to any registry involved denying the document, and do it promptly, because delay looks like acquiescence in either version of the case.

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.