Text of the provision
Art. 1390. 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.
(n)
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
Voidable (annullable) contracts — those where a party is incapable of consent or consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud — are binding until annulled in court and are susceptible of ratification. Damage is not required.
Related provisions
- Article 1389 — Prescriptive Period for Rescission.
- Article 1391 — Four Years to Annul.
Cases citing this article
- The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Caceres vs. Regino Pante, G.R. No. 174118, April 11, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hiers of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al./Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al, G.R. No. 165748 / G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Fulalio Cueno and Flora Bonifacio Cueno vs. Spouses Epifanio and Veronica Bautista, et, G.R. No. 246445, March 2, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Benigno Sumagang, represented by Jesus S. Abellanosa, et al. vs. Aznar Enterprises, G.R. No. 214315, August 14, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Joseph Harry Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205838, November 29, 2017 — 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.