VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

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)

Voidable Contracts.

Those which possesses all the essential requisites of a valid contract but one of the parties is incapable of
giving consent, or consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. A
contract is voidable because of the defective or vitiated consent. Damage is not required in order to make
a contract voidable.Another instance of a voidable contract is a contract where consent to it is given in a
state of drunkenness or under hypnotic spell (article 1348 supra)

VOIDABLE CONTRACTS intrinsic defect; valid until annulled; defect is due to vice of consent or legal
incapacity

CHARACTERISTICS:

a. Effective until set aside

b. May be assailed or attacked only in an action for that purpose
c. Can be confirmed ( Note: CONFIRMATION IS THE PROPER TERM FOR CURING THE DEFECT
OF A VOIDABLE CONTRACT)
d. Can be assailed only by the party whose consent was defective or his heirs or assigns

WHAT CONTRACTS ARE VOIDABLE:

a. THOSE WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES IS INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT TO A

CONTRACT (legal incapacity)
(1) minors ( below 18 )
(2) insane unless acted in lucid interval
(3) deaf mute who cant read or write
(4) persons specially disqualified: civil interdiction
(5) in state of drunkenness
(6) in state of hypnotic spell

BASIS VOIDABLE VOID CONTRACT RESCISSIBLE

CONTRACT CONTRACT
1. Nature of Defect Defect is intrinsic. Consent is absent or is Defect is external. It
There is a vice of lacking. Presence of consists in damage or
consent which vitiates other defects will also prejudice suffered by
consent render a contract void one of the contracting
 (Art. 1409) parties or a third person
like a creditor.
2. Effect of damage Whether there is No legal effect or If there is no damage or
or prejudice damage or not, contract binding effect. prejudice, contract
is voidable. cannot be rescissible
3. Basis of defect Annulability of the Contract is made in Rescissibility of the
contract is based on contrary to law, public contract is based on
law order, public policy and equity.
good customs
4. Predominance of Public interest - Private interest
Public interest Predominates Predominates
5. Susceptibility to It is susceptible to - Not susceptible to
Ratification Ratification Ratification
6. Sanction It is sanction It is not a sanction but It is not a sanction but a
a remedy remedy
7. Person who can Only parties to the Third person and Third person who are
assail contact contract can assail it. parties to the contract affected may assail it.
can assail it.
8. Nature of action Action is a principal - Action is subsidiary
pursuable action
9. Susceptibility to Susceptible to Not susceptible to -
consolidation consolidation by consolidation by
ratification or ratification or by
prescription prescription (art. 1409).
10. Prescriptibility of Action for annulment Action or defense -
action for its prescribes based on its in
attack existence or absolute
nullity does not
prescribe (art. 1410)
11. Waiver of defect Defect may be waived Right to set up the When the defect is
defense of illegality rectify.
cannot be waive (art.
1409, last par.).

Case: G.R. No. 207176 June 18, 2014

SPOUSES VICTOR and EUNA BINUA, Petitioners,

vs
LUCIA P. ONG, Respondent.

Facts:

Spouses Victor and Edna Binua (petitioners) seek the declaration of the nullity of the real estate
mortgages executed by petitioner Victor in favor of Lucia P. Ong (respondent), on the ground that these
were executed under fear, duress and threat.
Issue: Whether the court erred in declaring null and void the mortgage contracts finding that said
contracts were executed under fear, duress and threat.

Held:

The Court held that in order that intimidation may vitiate consent and render the contract invalid, the
following requisites must concur: (1) that the intimidation must be the determining cause of the contract,
or must have caused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the
threat be real and serious, there being an evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which
all men can offer, leading to the choice of the contract as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a
reasonable and well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary
means or ability to inflict the threatened injury.

Article 1390(2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts where the consent is vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud are voidable or annullable. Article 1335 of the Civil
Code, meanwhile, states that "[t]here 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." The same article,
however, further states that "[a] threat to enforce ones claim through competent authority, if the claim is
just or legal, does not vitiate consent.

G.R. No. 139982 November 21, 2002

JULIAN FRANCISCO ET AL
vs
PASTOR HERRERA, respondent.

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated August 30, 1999,
in CA-G.R. CV No. 47869, which affirmed in toto the judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Antipolo City, Branch 73, in Civil Case No. 92-2267. The appellate court sustained the trial courts ruling
which: (a) declared null and void the deeds of sale of the properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 01-
00495 and 01-00497; and (b) directed petitioner to return the subject properties to respondent who, in
turn, must refund to petitioner the purchase price of P1,750,000.

Issue: Whether the court ignored the basic difference between void and merely voidable contract missing
on essential element of the contract.

Held:

The court held, if an insane or demented person does enter into a contract, the legal effect is that the
contract is voidable or annullable as specifically provided in Article 1390. In the present case, it was
established that the vendor Eligio, Sr. entered into an agreement with petitioner, but that the formers
capacity to consent was vitiated by senile dementia. Hence, we must rule that the assailed contracts are
not void or inexistent per se; rather, these are contracts that are valid and binding unless annulled through
a proper action filed in court seasonably.
Bibliography:

D. Jurado, (2010) COMMENTS and JURISPRUDENCE on OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS Manila:

REX Book Store

E. Paras, (2012) Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated. Manila: REX Book Store.

H. De leon (2014) OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS, Manila: REX Book Store