Reformation due to third person's ignorance
Article 1364 of the Civil Code provides:
Under the above article, neither party has fault or responsible for the mistake in the contract. Hence, either party may ask for the reformation of the contract.[1] Thus, in a case, the Supreme Court allowed the reformation of a letter written by the plaintiff (contractor) to the defendant, which affirmed a verbal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to the construction of certain buildings, by substituting the dollar ($) sign for the peso (P) sign, it appearing that in said letter, by clerical error and unknown to the plaintiff, the latter sign was used instead of the former and the defendant knew or should have known in the very nature of things that no sane, responsible man would submit a deed to construct the buildings in question at the price in pesos.[2]
ART. 1364. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist, the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order that the instrument be reformed.
Under the above article, neither party has fault or responsible for the mistake in the contract. Hence, either party may ask for the reformation of the contract.[1] Thus, in a case, the Supreme Court allowed the reformation of a letter written by the plaintiff (contractor) to the defendant, which affirmed a verbal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to the construction of certain buildings, by substituting the dollar ($) sign for the peso (P) sign, it appearing that in said letter, by clerical error and unknown to the plaintiff, the latter sign was used instead of the former and the defendant knew or should have known in the very nature of things that no sane, responsible man would submit a deed to construct the buildings in question at the price in pesos.[2]
[1] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts.
[2] Manila Engineering Co. vs. Cranston and Heacock, 45 Phil. 128 (1923).
0 Comments