Burden of proof in case of mistake or

fraud.
When a person signs a document, the presumption
is that he does so with full knowledge of the contents of the
same. Should he later on allege fraud or mistake, it is
incumbent upon him to prove his allegation.
Article 1332 is an exception to the above rule. When
one of the parties is unable to read or if the contract is in a
language not understood by him, it is the party enforcing
the contract who is duty-bound to show that there has been
no fraud or mistake and that the terms of the contract have
been fully explained to the former. “This rule is especially
necessary in the Philippines where unfortunately there is
still a fairly large number of illiterates, and where
documents are usually drawn up in English or Spanish.”
 ART. 1333. There is no
mistake if the party alleging
it knew the doubt,
contingency or risk
affecting the object of the
contract.
Example:
B brought a parcel of land from S who
informed him before the contract was
perfected that the land was involved in a
litigation in which C is the claimant.
In case the land is recovered later on
by C, B cannot allege mistake in his contract
because he knew the risk that the land might
later on be recovered by C.
 ART. 1334. Mutual error as
to the legal effect of an
agreement when the real
purpose of the parties is
frustrated, may vitiate
consent.
Meaning of mistake of law
Mistake of law is that which
arises from an ignorance of some
provision of law, or from an
erroneous interpretation of its
meaning, or from an erroneous
conclusion as to the legal effect of
an agreement, on the part of one of
the parties.
Requisites for the application of Article
1334
For the article to apply, the following
requisites must be present.

1. The error must be mutual

2. It must be as to the legal effect of an
agreement
3. It must frustrate the real purpose of the
parties.
Examples:
1. D borrows P10,000 from C. As security for the
debt, it was agreed that D should mortgage his
parcel of land in favor of C. However, the
document as written is one of antichresis, the
parties erroneously believing that it has the
same effect as a mortgage.

In this case, the contract is voidable because

there is no meeting of the minds.
Examples:
2. In the same example, if the parties really
agreed on a sale, but the document as
written discloses a mortgage, there is a
meeting of the minds but the document does
not show their true intention.

In this case, the remedy is reformation.

Examples:
3. C delivers as a deposit a movable
property to D who receives it as a
loan.(commodatum)

Here, the mutual error is not on the

legal effect but on the nature of the contract
entered into. D must return the property as
there is neither a deposit nor a loan.
 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 the 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.