Text of the provision
Art. 1335. There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is employed. There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent. To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind. A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.
(1267a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
There is violence when serious or irresistible force wrests consent, and intimidation when a reasonable, well-grounded fear of an imminent grave evil (to oneself or one's spouse/ascendants/descendants or their property) compels it. A threat to enforce a just claim through the courts does not vitiate consent.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1334 — Mutual Error of Law.
- Article 1336 — Violence by a Third Person.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Jocelyn B. Doles vs. Ma. Aura Tina Angeles, G.R. No. 149353, June 26, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.