Text of the provision
Art. 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed. If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract.
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
When there was a meeting of minds but the instrument fails to express the true intention due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, a party may seek reformation to make the writing reflect the real agreement. If there was no meeting of minds at all, the remedy is annulment, not reformation.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1357 — Right to Compel Execution of Form.
- Article 1360 — General Law on Reformation.
Cases citing this article
- Spouses Feliciana and Angel Cesa vs. Spouses Elisa Montano Brucelas and David Brucelas, G.R. No. 255564, March 5, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Proceso Quiros, et al. vs. Marcelo Arjona, et al, G.R. No. 158901, March 9, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Florencia T. Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 95897, December 14, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- La Filipina Uy Gongco Corporation vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, G.R. No. 229490, March 1,2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — 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.