Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1364 of the Civil Code, when a typist or drafter's negligence causes an instrument not to reflect what the parties actually agreed on, a court may order that instrument reformed to match the true intention of the parties.
What the law says
When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist, the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order that the instrument be reformed.
Civil Code, Article 1364 — Reformation for Drafting Error. Read the full provision →
The legal basis for reforming a deed with drafting errors
Article 1364 of the Civil Code addresses a common problem: the agreement the parties reached is not what ended up on paper. Where the mismatch was caused by the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith of the person who drafted the document — or of the clerk or typist who typed it — the law does not leave the parties stuck with a defective instrument. A court may order reformation so that the written deed reflects what was actually intended and agreed upon.
What you need to prove
Reformation under this article requires establishing two things. First, that the parties had a real, definite agreement before the document was prepared. Second, that the instrument as drafted or typed does not accurately capture that agreement. The cause of the discrepancy — whether negligence, incompetence, or bad faith by the drafter or typist — is expressly covered by the provision. You do not need to show that either party acted improperly; it is the person who prepared the document whose fault matters under this rule.
Reformation is a court remedy, not a self-help one
The remedy Article 1364 provides is judicial: the courts may order that the instrument be reformed. This means you cannot simply cross out errors and initial them, or sign a letter of correction, and expect the same legal force as a court order of reformation. If the other party accepts a correction voluntarily, that is a separate matter. But if there is any dispute — about what was agreed, what the error was, or whether the deed needs changing at all — the proper route is a court action for reformation.
Practical steps before going to court
Before filing anything, gather the evidence that shows the true agreement: drafts, letters, text messages, contemporaneous notes, or testimony of witnesses who were present when the terms were settled. Compare these against the instrument that was actually signed. The stronger and clearer the evidence of the original intent, the more straightforward the reformation claim becomes. A lawyer can assess whether the discrepancy is significant enough to pursue and whether other remedies — such as re-execution of the deed — might be simpler in your particular situation.
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.
- Heirs of Cornelio Miguel vs Heirs of Angel Miguel, G.R. No. 158916, March 19, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Multi-realty Devt. Corp. vs. The Makati Tuscany Condo. Corp, G.R. No. 146726, June 16, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →