Short answer. Yes. Article 1362 of the Civil Code lets you ask for reformation of the instrument when you were mistaken and the other party acted fraudulently or inequitably in a way that caused the document not to reflect your true intention. Reformation corrects the writing to match what was actually agreed.
What the law says
If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a way that the instrument does not show their true intention, the former may ask for the reformation of the instrument.
Civil Code, Article 1362 — Reformation: Mistake of One, Fraud of the Other. Read the full provision →
What reformation is for
Reformation is a remedy aimed at the document itself, not the underlying agreement. Article 1362 applies where the parties actually had a real, valid agreement, but the written instrument meant to record it fails to reflect their true intention because of what happened when it was drafted. Rather than undoing the contract entirely, reformation asks a court to correct the writing so it says what the parties actually agreed to, which is a different remedy from annulment or rescission of the underlying deal.
The two elements Article 1362 requires
The article is specific about what has to be shown: that you, as one party, were mistaken about what the document said or reflected, and that the other party acted fraudulently or inequitably in a way that caused that mismatch between the writing and your true intention. Both pieces matter. Your own mistake alone, without fault attributable to the other side's fraudulent or inequitable conduct, is not what this particular article addresses; it is the combination of your mistake and their misconduct that grounds the remedy.
What inequitably adds beyond outright fraud
Article 1362 does not require you to prove fraud in the strict sense; it also covers conduct that is inequitable, a broader standard than deliberate deception. This matters because pinning down every element of fraud can be difficult, particularly around intent, while inequitable conduct captures situations where the other side took unfair advantage of the drafting process even short of a clear-cut fraudulent scheme, as long as the result was the same: a document that does not show the true intention of the parties.
What reformation does and does not accomplish
If reformation succeeds, the instrument is corrected to conform to what the parties actually intended, and the corrected version then governs the relationship going forward. Reformation does not create a new agreement between the parties or add terms they never actually agreed to; it restores the writing to match an agreement that already existed but was inaccurately recorded. Because of this, being able to show what was truly agreed, separate from what the flawed document says, is central to pursuing this remedy.
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.
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- PCI Leasing and Finance, inc. vs. Trojan Metal Industries Inc., et al, G.R. No. 176381, December 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cebu Contractors Consortium Co., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 107199, July 22, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →