Short answer. Under Civil Code Article 1390, two types of contracts are voidable: those where one party was incapable of giving valid consent, and those where consent was vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. These contracts remain binding unless annulled by court action.

What the law says

The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.

Civil Code, Article 1390 — Voidable Contracts. Read the full provision →

Two grounds that make a contract voidable

Article 1390 identifies two categories. The first covers situations where a party lacked the capacity to give consent — minors, persons under civil interdiction, and others the law designates as incapable. The second covers situations where the party had capacity but their consent was vitiated — corrupted or coerced — by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. Both categories produce the same legal status: the contract is voidable. Notably, Article 1390 does not require that the party suffer actual damage. The defect in consent is enough, regardless of whether money was lost.

Voidable contracts remain binding until annulled

This is the crucial point that many people miss: a voidable contract is not automatically void. It is valid and binding from the moment it is entered into, and it remains so until a court annuls it. The party with the right to annul — typically the incapacitated party or the one whose consent was vitiated — must take action. If that person does nothing, the contract continues in full force. The other party can enforce it. Assets can be transferred and obligations performed under a voidable contract that has never been challenged.

Ratification can heal a voidable contract

Article 1390 states that voidable contracts are susceptible of ratification. Ratification means the party who had the right to annul instead accepts the contract — expressly by confirming it, or impliedly by performing under it or accepting benefits without objection after the defect has been removed. A minor who reaches majority and continues to accept payments under a contract they signed as a minor may be held to have ratified it. Once ratified, the right to annul is extinguished and the contract becomes fully valid, as though the defect never existed.

How voidable differs from void contracts

Understanding the distinction between voidable and void matters enormously in practice. A void contract produces no legal effect from the start — no court action is needed to establish its invalidity, and neither party can enforce it or ratify it. A voidable contract, by contrast, is fully enforceable until set aside. The action to annul a voidable contract must be brought within the prescriptive period provided by law; if that window closes without a court action, the right is lost. Anyone who suspects they signed a contract under one of the conditions Article 1390 describes should seek legal advice promptly before that period runs.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.