Short answer. No. Article 1366 of the Civil Code expressly prohibits reformation when the real agreement is void. Reformation corrects a written instrument that does not reflect the true agreement — but if the underlying agreement itself is void, there is nothing valid to restore, and the remedy does not apply.
What the law says
There shall be no reformation in the following cases: (1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed; (2) Wills; (3) When the real agreement is void.
Civil Code, Article 1366 — When Reformation Is Not Allowed. Read the full provision →
Why reformation is unavailable when the real agreement is void
Reformation is a remedy designed to correct a written instrument that, because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, fails to express the true intention of the parties. The idea is that the parties had a valid agreement but the document recording it went wrong. Article 1366 closes off that remedy when the underlying agreement itself is void — not merely defective in form, but legally non-existent. Reforming such an instrument would amount to creating a legal foundation where none exists, which is beyond what the remedy is meant to do.
The three situations where the Civil Code bars reformation
Article 1366 identifies three situations: (1) simple donations between living persons where no condition is imposed; (2) wills; and (3) when the real agreement is void. The first two follow from their nature — a donation without conditions needs no correction, and a will takes effect only at death and cannot be modified by court action during the testator's lifetime. The third — void underlying agreement — is the one most relevant here. If what the parties actually agreed to is legally void, no instrument reform can salvage it.
What makes an agreement void, not merely voidable
A void agreement is one that lacks an essential element from the start — an illegal object, a prohibited cause, or an absolute absence of consent. A voidable agreement, by contrast, has a defect that can be cured or ratified. The distinction matters because Article 1366's bar applies only when the real agreement — what the parties actually intended — is void. If the agreement was valid but the written instrument recorded something different by mistake, reformation remains available. The question is always whether the true, intended agreement could stand on its own as a valid contract.
What to do instead
When the underlying agreement is void, the appropriate remedy is not reformation but an action to have the agreement declared void and to obtain restitution of whatever was given or performed under it. This is a fundamentally different type of proceeding: rather than correcting a document to match a valid agreement, you are asking the court to recognize that no valid agreement exists and to restore the parties to the position they were in before. Whether other remedies — such as recovery of unjust enrichment — are available depends on the specific facts and reason for the agreement's nullity. A lawyer can assess which route applies in your 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 →