Text of the provision
Art. 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a way that the instrument does not show their true intention, the former may ask for the reformation of the instrument.
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
If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably so that the instrument does not show the true intention, the mistaken party may ask for reformation.
This article addresses a one-sided version of the mistake that can justify reformation. Where both parties are honestly wrong about what the instrument says, Article 1361 supplies the remedy for that mutual mistake. Here, only one party was mistaken, while the other party's own fraudulent or inequitable conduct caused the resulting instrument to misstate what the parties had actually agreed to. Because the fault lies with one side and the mistake lies with the other, the law gives the mistaken — and innocent — party the option to seek reformation.
Questions about this provision
- Can I ask a court to reform a contract if the other party acted fraudulently while drafting it so the document does not show our true intent?
- The written document does not reflect our real deal because the other side acted in bad faith, can I have it corrected?
Related provisions
- Article 1361 — Reformation for Mutual Mistake.
- Article 1363 — Reformation: Concealed Knowledge.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- PCI Leasing and Finance, inc. vs. Trojan Metal Industries Inc., et al, G.R. No. 176381, December 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cebu Contractors Consortium Co., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 107199, July 22, 2003 — 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.