Short answer. No, generally. A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority does not vitiate consent if the claim is just or legal. Because the debt was one he had a genuine legal right to collect, threatening to sue you over it does not amount to the intimidation that would let you annul the agreement.
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 →
The specific exception that answers your question
The statute carves out exactly this situation: a threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority — such as threatening to sue — does not vitiate consent, provided the claim being threatened is just or legal. Since the debt was genuinely his to collect and suing you was a legitimate way to enforce it, the threat to do so does not count as the kind of intimidation that could let you annul the agreement.
What intimidation actually requires
For comparison, the article defines intimidation as being compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon your person or property, or upon your spouse, descendants, or ascendants, in order to give consent. A lawful threat to pursue a legitimate claim through the courts is not the kind of grave and unlawful evil this definition is aimed at — going to court to collect a genuine debt is simply the legal process working as intended, not a wrong being threatened against you.
Why the outcome would differ if the claim were not genuine
This exception is expressly tied to the claim being just or legal. If the person had no real right to the debt, or was demanding far more than what was actually owed, and used the threat of a lawsuit to extract your agreement anyway, that threat could fall outside this protective exception and might instead qualify as intimidation capable of vitiating your consent. The legitimacy of the underlying claim is what separates a lawful threat to sue from unlawful intimidation.
What this article does not decide
This provision determines whether the threat itself counts as intimidation — it does not independently resolve whether the debt was actually owed, or whether some other defect entirely unrelated to intimidation might affect the agreement you signed. If you believe the debt was not truly owed as claimed, that is a separate factual and legal question from whether the threat to sue over it was itself improper under this article.
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.
- Spouses Victor and Edna Binua vs. Lucia P. Ong, G.R. No. 207176, June 18, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ricardo V. Quintos vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jocelyn M. Toledo vs. Marilou M. Hyden, G.R. No. 172139, December 8, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Manuel T. De Guia for himself and as Attorney-in-fact of Fe Davis-Maramba, et al. vs. Sps. Teofilo Morte and Angelina Villarico Morte, G.R. No. 161074, March 22, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →