This article 1331 refers to a mistake due to ignorance or lack of knowledge of fact.

This
article is a substantial mistake of fact, what the law contemplates about. In other words,
the party would not have given the consent if he had known the mistake. Also here the
mistake maybe unilateral as provided in the paragraph two of the article. It is only when
one of the party has mistaken them through fact or bilateral when both parties are in
error. So going back to the article, although the provision of the article is rather long, its
content is very simple, the article simply answered the questions when does mistake
vitiate consent? Basically these articles provides the requisites of mistake to vitiate the
consent and that’s if its substantial. So the requisites are; first it is regarding the object
of the contract, second conditions in which have principally moved one or both parties to
enter into the contract, and thirsd is the identity or qualifications of one of the parties. So
we talk about the substantiality of the thing but when will know if the mistake is
substantial? So we can determine to this question “ will the party take part into that
contract despite knowing the mistake? If yes, that mistake is immaterial or it’s not a
substantial mistake. If no that mistake is substantial. In other words this question
reflects the concept of susbstantial mistake. For now to have a deeper understanding
lets have an example.
First of mistake regarding the object, let us say that Maria needs to buy an accounting
book so she bought from Merlinda now upon delivery of the book it turned out a finance
book and Merlinda is actually selling a finance book. So if maria knew that merlinda
sells a finance book, definitely she would have not entered this contract. So another
example in terms of the mistake regarding the condition of the contract, for examples
merlinda delivers a book to maria having thought that maria has the financial capability
to pay so. Basically merlinda selling on it account. On the other hand maria agrees
thinking that is a game partialy donations from merlinda. So there’s a mistake regarding
to the conditions in this example. Another example is regarding the mistake to the
identity or qualifications of one of the parties. Remember that mistake has a condition in
order for it to vitiate the contract as the article provided mistake as to the identity or
qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate consent only when such identity or
qualifications have been the prinicipal cause of the contract. For better example, it is
when not a principal cause. In the first day of class maria sold the extra book to
merlinda FOR PROFIT. .Mmaria thought that merlinda is her classmate when actually
she is from another section. The principal cause as to why maria sold the books is for
profit. So the identity share is not of substance to why maria is selling the book. Lets talk
about the mistakes regarding the condition of the identity or qualifications but now it’s a
principal cause. FoR example, maria wants to donate an extra book to her class mate.
Maria gave it to merlinda when in fact merlinda is not her classmate. The identity here is
the principal cause for the consideration thus this is substantial mistake regarding the
identity or qualifications. This then vitiate the consent.
In this article 1331 refers to a mistake due to ignorance or a lack of factual knowledge.
This article contains a significant factual mistake concerning what the law anticipates. In
other words, if the party had realized the mistake, he would not have given his consent.
Also, as stated in paragraph two of the article, the error could be unilateral. Only when
one of the parties has made a factual or bilateral mistake are both parties in error. So,
returning to the article, while the provision is lengthy, the content is straightforward; the
article merely answered the question of when does a mistake vitiate consent.
Essentially, these articles lay out the conditions for a mistake to invalidate a consent, if it
is substantial. So the requirements are as follows: first, is regarding the object of the
contract, second conditions in which have principally moved one or both parties to enter
into the contract, and third is the identity or qualifications of one of the parties. So we
talk about the thing's substantiality, but when will we know if the error is substantial? As
a result, we can answer the question, "Will the party participate in the contract despite
knowing the mistake?" If you answered Yes, that mistake is immaterial or it’s not a
substantial mistake. If No that mistake is substantial. To put it another way, this question
embodies the concept of substantial mistake.
Let's look at an example for now to gain a better idea. First, let us imagine Maria
needed an accounting book and got it from Claire; however, when the book arrived, it
turned out to be a finance book, and Claire is actually marketing a finance book. So, if
Maria had known that Claire offers a finance book, she would not have agreed to this
contract. Another example of a mistake regarding the condition of the contract, is when
Claire gives a book to Maria, believing that Maria has the financial potential to pay.
Essentially, Claire is selling on its behalf. On the other side, Maria agrees, believing that
the game is partially funded by Claire. In this example, there is an error or mistake with
the conditions. Another example is a misunderstanding (mistake) about one of the
participants' identity or qualifications. Remember that a misunderstanding as to the
identity or qualifications of one of the parties will void consent only if such identity or
qualifications were the primary cause of the contract, as stated in the article. When it is
not the principal cause, for example. Maria sold the extra book to Claire for profit on the
first day of class, mistaking Claire for a student when she was actually from another
section. The principal cause as to why Maria sold the books is for profit. So the identity
share is not of substance to why Maria is selling the book. Let's talk about the mistakes
with regard to the state of one's identification or qualifications, which is now a principal
cause. For instance, Maria wants to give an extra book to a classmate. Maria handed it
to Claire, who is not her classmate. The identity here is the principal cause for the
consideration thus this is substantial mistake regarding the identity or qualifications. As
a result, the consent becomes void or in in other words, this situation tells that this
vitiate the consent.