Short answer. No. Article 1367 of the Civil Code bars you from doing both. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, that party cannot subsequently ask for its reformation. By filing to enforce the contract as written, you have elected to treat it as correctly reflecting the agreement.
What the law says
When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation.
Civil Code, Article 1367 — Enforcement Bars Reformation. Read the full provision →
Enforcement and reformation are mutually exclusive
Article 1367 of the Civil Code draws a clear line: when one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation. These two remedies rest on incompatible premises. Enforcement assumes the written contract is correct — that it says what both parties intended. Reformation assumes the written contract is wrong — that it fails to express the true agreement due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident. You cannot hold both positions at once. Once you sue to enforce, you have committed to the position that the written instrument is the parties' genuine agreement.
Why the law bars this sequencing
The bar against sequential enforcement-then-reformation is rooted in consistency and fairness. If a party could sue on the contract as written, lose or find it inconvenient, and then pivot to seeking reformation to get a different result, the opposing party — and the court — could never rely on a stable statement of what the dispute is actually about. Article 1367 prevents this kind of inconsistent litigation strategy. The law asks parties to commit: either you believe the instrument is accurate (enforce it) or you believe it misexpresses the agreement (reform it). You must choose before you bring your action.
The rule applies to the party who filed suit
Article 1367 binds the party who brought the enforcement action. If you are the plaintiff who filed suit to enforce the contract, you are the one who cannot later seek reformation of that same instrument. The other party — the one you sued — may still raise reformation as a defense or counterclaim in appropriate circumstances, because they did not take the position that the written contract was binding. The bar is personal to the party who chose enforcement first; it reflects that party's own inconsistency in now wanting to change what they asked the court to enforce.
What to consider before filing any action on a contract
If you are looking at a written contract that you believe does not correctly express what was agreed — and you are also considering suing on it — think carefully before filing. Once you commence the enforcement action, the door to reformation closes for you. If the contract as written actually works against your interests, seeking reformation first is likely the right approach: have the instrument corrected to reflect the true agreement, then enforce the corrected version. If you are uncertain whether the contract accurately reflects the deal, a lawyer can review both the written instrument and the surrounding circumstances to advise which remedy — or which combination — best serves your position before you choose one and foreclose the other.