ART. 1329.

The incapacity declared in Article 1327 is subject to the modifications determined by law,
and is understood to be without prejudice to special disqualifications established in the laws.

So pag sinabi nating capacitated ang isang tao, ibig sabihin capacitated siya or pwede siyang pumasok sa
isang contract. Pero kapag sinabi nating incapacitated ang isang tao o enter a contract, hindi siya
pwedeng mag-enter into a contract okay?

There are 2 kinds of incapacity, we have (1) Absolute Incapacity and (2) Relative Incapacity.

Let’s discuss first the Absolute Incapacity, kapag sinabi nating absolute incapacity, eto yung mga tao na
incapacitated to enter any kind of contract, kahit anong klaseng kontrata pero shempre may mga certain
exceptions generally lahat ng contracts hindi sila pwedeng pumasok pero ayun nga may mga
exceptions. So first, (1.) Unemancipated Minors, kahit anong klaseng contract in general hindi nila
pwedeng pasukan except, - contracts involving necessary for example bumili sila ng pagkain, so that
contract is binding because it involves necessary, bumili ng pagkain, damit or pangangailangan etc.
magiging necessary siya or next - When the minor misrepresented his age, nagloko siya, sabi niya 18 na
siya pero 12 lang pala, so it will bind him into a contract. Next is (2.) Insane or demented person, baliw
ganon or usually Alzheimer’s, makakalimutin ganon pero ang exception natin jan is yung – Lucid Interval,
ito yung time na nasa katinuan yung tao, so parang pwede kang makipag contract sa Insane or baliw
kapag sila ay nasa kanilang lucid interval o nasa katinuan yung pag iisip nila at that moment. And lastly
(3.) Deaf-Mutes who do not know how to write, ayun, hindi pa din siya capacitated to enter into a
contract kasi ayun nga as na-meet yung deaf and mute na who do not know how to read and write.

Next is (2) Relatively Incapacitated, Number one (1) Those under Civil interdiction for transactions inter
vivos, (2) Undischarged insolvents and (3) Husband and Wife: cannot donate to each other, nor sell if the
marriage is under ACP.

Ang pagkakaiba ng Relatively and Absolutely Incapacitated, kapag pumasok sa isang contract ang isang
absolutely incapacitated person, yung magiging status ng contract na yun ay Voidable, however if a
relatively incapacitated persons enters the contract which is ipinagbabawal sa kanya, the status of the
contract will be Void.

ART 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, under influence,
or fraud is voidable.

It must be intelligent, free, spontaneous, and real (not vitiated). Meron tayong 5 vices of consent. First is
(1) Violence – in violence there is physical force for example sinuntok ka, sinampal ka, binugbog. Next
(2)Intimidation – walang physical force pero merong kumbaga na pagbabanta, pagbabanta sayo or sa
mga kamag anak mo or sa properties mo, so merong pagbabanta. (3) Mistake – eto yung kung alam mo
sana na may mistake yung papasukan mong contract, hindi mo na sana to pinasukan. (4) Fraud – or
panloloko, yung tinutukoy na fraud dito is fraud in obtaining consent or the dolo cosante. And lastly (5)
Undue Influence – for example yung friend mo binentahan ka ng ganito sa napa-oo ka kasi parang
nahihiya ka ganon or parang nakakahiyang tumanggi ganon.

ART. 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing
which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both
parties to enter into the contract. Mistake as to the identity or qualifi cations of one of the parties will
vitiate consent only when such identity or qualifi cations have been the principal cause of the
contract. A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction. (1266a)

In article 1331, we will just answer the question: When does ,mistake or an error vitiates consent? Kailan
mo ba masasabi na yung mistake or yung error nayun is sufficient to vitiate consent. Now this article
1331 says that, eto yung mga requisites for mistake to vitiate consent, first is the error or yung mistake
mismo it must be substancial, substancial regarding saan, first one is (1) the object of the contract, (2 nd)
the conditions which have principally moved or both parties to enter into the contract and (3 rd) is
identity or qualifications of one of the parties. So dapat may substantial error or mistake as to that
aspect either the object of the contract, yung conditions which have principally moved or both partied
enter into the contract and third identity or qualifications of one of the parties and the last paragraph
meron jan, a simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction. Meaning kapag simple error or
mistake as to account lang, hindi naman kailangan ng annulment of contract, pwede naman correction
lang.

For Example:
lets make an example kung papaano mo masasabi na magkakaroon ng Mistake regarding the object of
the contracts, halimbawa (1) Boy delivered 32k of gold necklace to Girl (2)now later on upon delivering,
ang dumating is hindi 32karat kundi 16karat, in this situation shempre kung alam lang ni Girl na 16k lang
ang matatanggap niya kay Boy, malamang hindi na siya papasok into that contract.

Another example is mistake regarding the condition of the contract halimbawa (1)Boy deliver to Girl a
car, thinking that Girl will pay when she will have money, Girl agrees in the belief that it is donated to
him by Boy. So meron talagang mistake as to declare the condition of the contract.

Another one hre is the mistake regarding the identity or qualification of one party, halimbawa, (1) if si
Boy donated to Girl a car, thinking that Girl is a lawyer, who is really a doctor. Dito makikita mona hindi
naman substantial yung mistake, the mistake here not that material or substantial as to avoid the
contract, pero if yung mistake as to identity is ganito (2) Boy donated to Girl a car, thingking that Girl
was his half-sister. It turned out that Girl is not related to Boy. Hindi pala si Girl ang kanyang kapatid, and
so the mistake as to the identity of Girl is material because obviously her identity was the principal
reason or consideration kung bakit niya ibinigay ang kanyang sasakyan.
ART. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not
understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that
the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. (n)

Basically, if one of the person is unable to read or if the contract is in the language not understood ny
one of the parties. For example, si Boy is blind, pumirma siya ng isang kontrata thru a thumbmark
believing that contract is Mortgage lang pero sa totoo pala deed of sale pala siya in favor s akanyang
relative (Girl), If Girl claims fraud or mistake, Girl has the burden of proving that she did not take
advantage of Boys situation or position and failure to do so, if hindi niya ma prove na she did not take
advantage of the situation as a relative of Boy who is blind, the deed of sale can be annulled.

ART. 1333. There is no mistake if the party alleging it knew the doubt, contingency or risk affecting the
object of the contract.

If may knowledge of doubt itong other party then there is no vitiation of consent, it will just be assumed
that the party was willing to take that risk, ganun lang. and so, he cannot claim mistakes afterwards.
Example may ibinebenta sayong lupa and then you are actually informed na meron pang pending
litigation, maraming nagke claim ng owner ng lupa na yon and later on binili mo, and ayun nga yung
seller ng lupa is natalo to claim yung lupa na yon, hindi mo na maa annulled yung contract dahil claiming
mistake kumbaga merong vitiated consent, kasi in the first place alam mo and so you have assumed or
you are willing to take the chance.