In short
Article 285 is a single line and it closes the list: the defects of the will are error, deceit, violence and intimidation. Four, and the article names no others. Article 286 is the one with consequences. Its first paragraph says the juridical act in which a defect of the will intervenes is voidable — not null — if the defect was determinante for its execution. Note the two limits packed into that phrase: voidable, an invalidity someone has to ask for and that can be lost; and determinante, meaning that without the defect you would not have signed. That the defect existed is not enough; it must have moved the signature. Then the article splits into two routes that are not symmetrical, and there sits what almost nobody expects. The second paragraph says whoever causes the deceit, the violence or the intimidation is subject to indemnifying the resulting damages. Three of the four defects, not all four: error does not appear on that list, because in error there is nobody to blame. And the third paragraph reverses the flow of money: in the case of error, the party who invokes it must restitute the expenses incurred by the party who did not err. That is, getting out of a deal through your own mistake is a remedy that costs money to whoever uses it. The fourth paragraph closes with the burden of proof: proving the existence of the defect and its character falls on whoever alleges it.
What is it?
They are Articles 285 and 286 of the Civil Code of 2020: which four defects of the will exist, when they void an act, and who pays what.
Who can do it?
Anyone who signed a contract, a will or any other juridical act while mistaken, deceived, forced or threatened.
Requirements
- The defects of the will are four: error, deceit, violence and intimidation.Verified against the official source
- The act in which a defect intervenes is voidable, not null, and only if the defect was determinante for its execution.Verified against the official source
- Whoever causes the deceit, violence or intimidation is subject to indemnifying the resulting damages.Verified against the official source
- In error, the party invoking it must restitute the expenses incurred by the party who did not err.Verified against the official source
- Proving the existence of the defect and its character falls on whoever alleges it.Verified against the official source
Documents you need
Cost
Step by step
Step 1: Check it fits one of the four
Article 285: the defects of the will are error, deceit, violence and intimidation. The list is closed.
Step 2: The act is voidable, not null
Article 286: the act in which a defect intervenes is voidable. Someone has to ask for it.
Step 3: And only if it was determinante
The same paragraph conditions it: if the defect was determinante for the execution. Existing is not enough.
Step 4: Look for an author
The second paragraph makes the author of deceit, violence or intimidation indemnify. That is three, not four.
Step 5: Error is not on that list
The article does not include error among the defects that generate indemnity payable by an author.
Step 6: In error, whoever invokes it pays
Third paragraph: whoever invokes error must restitute the expenses incurred by the party who did not err.
Step 7: Prepare the proof
Fourth paragraph: proving the defect’s existence and character falls on whoever alleges it.
Where to do it
These two articles describe no procedure before any agency. The Code does not define here what makes a defect determinante, nor who decides it. It does not define error, deceit, violence or intimidation here: each has its own section, and this site covers them separately. It does not say who may seek annulment, before which forum, with what pleading or at what fee. And it sets no deadline: the Code speaks of the prescription of the annulment action when dealing with confirmation, but no article of this Book says how long it is. Nor does it say what the restitution of expenses in error covers or how far it goes. None of those gaps is filled here.
How long it takes
What to do if something goes wrong
The first thing to accept is that these articles do not automatically return you to where you were. The act is voidable, which is not the same as null: it has to be asked for, and while nobody asks the contract produces effects. The second thing is the word determinante. Article 286 does not ask whether there was an error or a deceit, but whether that error or deceit is what caused the signature. A detail that annoyed you but that you would have accepted anyway does not meet the requirement as written, and the article does not explain who draws that line. The third thing changes almost anyone’s calculation: if your defect was error — that is, you got it wrong yourself with nobody deceiving or threatening you — the third paragraph makes you restitute the expenses the other party incurred. The Code does not say which ones or up to how much. Undoing the deal may cost you more than carrying it, and that has to be worked out before suing, not after. If there was deceit, violence or intimidation, by contrast, the second paragraph puts the indemnity for damages on the author, who may be the other party or a third person depending on the defect. And in every case the proof is yours: the fourth paragraph says proving the defect’s existence and its character falls on whoever alleges it, so an email, a message, a witness or an expert report is worth more than the best version of the facts. MiPRFácil does not represent anyone in court and gives no legal advice.
Common mistakes
- Believing there are more defects of the will: Article 285 names four and names no others.
- Treating the contract as null: Article 286 leaves it voidable, and that has to be asked for.
- Forgetting the word determinante: the defect must have caused the execution.
- Counting on an indemnity when the defect was your own error: the second paragraph does not include error.
- Not costing the other party’s expenses before voiding for error: the third paragraph makes you restitute them.
- Expecting the Code to say how much those expenses are: it does not say.
- Assuming the other side must prove there was no defect: proof falls on whoever alleges it.
- Looking in these two articles for the definition of error, deceit, violence or intimidation: each has its own section.
Frequently asked questions
What are the defects of the will?
Article 285 enumerates them: error, deceit, violence and intimidation. It mentions no others.
If I was the one mistaken, do they owe me damages?
Article 286’s second paragraph only binds the author of deceit, violence or intimidation. Error is not on that list.
Does voiding for error cost me money?
The third paragraph says the party invoking error must restitute the expenses incurred by the party who did not err.
Who has to prove the defect?
Whoever alleges it. The fourth paragraph places on them the proof of the defect’s existence and character.
Official sources
These are the government pages this guide is based on.
- Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico
Poder Judicial
bvirtualogp.pr.gov
Last verified
September 12, 2026
MiPRFácil is an independent informational website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Government of Puerto Rico or any government agency.
MiPRFácil does not submit applications on your behalf.
Was this guide helpful?
Did you find out-of-date information?
A calculation error in a contract is corrected; it does not void the deal
Article 290 of the Civil Code of 2020 orders calculation errors rectified, and Articles 288 and 289 limit which errors do void.
Staying silent on purpose is deceit; and if both deceived, nobody indemnifies anybody
Article 292 of the Civil Code of 2020 counts an intentional omission as deceit, and Article 294 leaves reciprocal deceit without remedy.
Threatening someone you love voids the contract, and it counts even from a third party
Article 295 of the Civil Code of 2020 includes imminent harm to your loved ones, and Article 296 reaches a threatening third party.
Performing the contract after the cause ends costs you the right to void it
Article 350 of the Civil Code of 2020 turns full or partial performance into tacit confirmation, and 351 extinguishes the action with it.
The services contract, and how it differs from a contract for works
The provider supplies a service, without being subordinate, for a price. It is agreed for a set time; if not, supply-contract rules apply.
Not saying a formality was met does not void a will; not meeting it does
Article 1708 of the Civil Code of 2020 saves the will when it can be shown the requirement was met even if not stated.
Your agent may not sell themselves what is yours without your express consent
Article 322 of the Civil Code of 2020 makes voidable any act the representative makes with themselves without the principal’s express consent.
Not answering is not accepting, except in the three cases the Code lists
Article 267 of the Civil Code of 2020 says silence or inaction do not declare will, save by law, agreement, or prior dealings.