Short answer. Five defects make a contract voidable: mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence and fraud. The contract is not automatically void — it produces effects until the party whose consent was defective goes to court and has it annulled, or lets the chance pass.
What the law says
A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable.
Civil Code, Article 1330 — Vices of Consent. Read the full provision →
The five defects, and why the list is closed
Article 1330 states the rule in one sentence: a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. Those five are the whole list. Feeling pressured by circumstances, signing because you badly needed the money, or later realising the deal was a poor bargain are not on it. The law asks a narrower question: was your agreement produced by an error about something essential, by physical force, by a threat, by the moral ascendancy of someone in a position over you, or by deception used to get you to agree? If the answer is no, disappointment with the outcome will not undo the contract.
Voidable is not the same as void
This is the point most people get wrong, and it costs them. A voidable contract is valid and binding until annulled. It transfers property, creates obligations, and can be enforced against you in the meantime. Only the party whose consent was defective can attack it — the person who applied the pressure or told the lie cannot use his own wrongdoing to escape. And the right to attack it can be lost: by letting the period to sue run out, or by ratifying the contract, expressly or by conduct such as continuing to accept its benefits after the pressure or the mistake has ended. Acting promptly is not a formality here; it is often the whole case.
What each defect actually requires
Mistake must be about the substance of the thing or the principal conditions that moved you to contract, not a mere error of motive or a bad estimate of value. Violence is serious physical force. Intimidation is a well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil to you, your person or property, or those of your close family. Undue influence involves someone improperly taking advantage of the power they hold over your mind — through confidence, authority, dependence or distress. Fraud must be the serious deception that induced the agreement; ordinary sales talk and exaggeration do not qualify, and neither does a misrepresentation both sides knew was mere opinion.
Proving it, and what annulment gets you
Consent shown by a signed document is presumed freely given, so the burden falls on the person attacking the contract, and it is a real burden. Courts look for the trail: messages, witnesses, the timing of the signing, who drafted it, whether you had a chance to read or take advice, and what you did once the pressure lifted. Preserve the drafts, the chat threads and any note of who was in the room. If annulment succeeds, the usual consequence is mutual restitution — each side returns what it received, with fruits or interest — so be clear on what you would have to give back. Take the documents to a lawyer early rather than waiting to see whether the other side enforces.
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.
- Cebu Windland Development Corporation vs. Ong Siao Hua, G.R. No. 173215, May 21, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Domingo Realty, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126236, January 26, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Oil Company vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 109976, April 26, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Benjie B. Georg vs. Holy Trinity College, Inc, G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →