In the Philippines, the Family Code provides specific grounds for the annulment of a marriage, rendering it voidable—valid until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Among these, fraud (Article 45, Paragraph 3) is one of the most frequently cited but strictly interpreted grounds.
Under Article 46 of the Family Code, the law defines exactly what constitutes the "fraud" necessary to annul a marriage. It is important to note that not all lies or deceptions between spouses qualify; only those involving the concealment of specific "material facts" are recognized.
1. The Legal Definition of Fraud in Marriage
For fraud to be a ground for annulment, it must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage. If a spouse discovers a secret that the other spouse didn't even know themselves at the time, or if the deception occurs after the wedding, it does not constitute legal fraud for annulment.
The law is "exclusive," meaning only the circumstances listed in Article 46 can be used. Any other misrepresentation—such as lying about wealth, character, family background, or social standing—does not constitute ground for annulment.
2. The Four Exclusive Grounds of Fraud
According to Article 46, fraud is limited to the non-disclosure or concealment of the following:
I. Non-disclosure of a Previous Conviction
The concealment of a final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Moral Turpitude: Acts that are inherently base, vile, or depraved (e.g., estafa, robbery, murder, or rape).
- Requirement: The conviction must be final and the spouse must have deliberately hidden this fact from the other.
II. Concealment of Pregnancy by Another Man
If, at the time of the marriage, the wife was pregnant by a man other than her husband and she concealed this fact.
- Exception: If the husband knew about the pregnancy, even if he wasn't the father, he cannot later claim fraud. The essence of the ground is the concealment.
III. Concealment of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
The concealment of a sexually transmitted disease existing at the time of the marriage, which is found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
- Distinction: This is different from Article 45(6), which cites the existence of a serious, incurable STD as a standalone ground. Under fraud, the focus is on the dishonesty regarding the condition.
IV. Concealment of Drug Addiction, Habitual Alcoholism, or Homosexuality/Lesbianism
The concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, or homosexuality/lesbianism (including "sodomy") existing at the time of the marriage.
- Strict Interpretation: The court requires proof that these conditions existed at the time of the wedding and were intentionally hidden. Discovery of a spouse becoming an alcoholic or "coming out" years into the marriage usually does not qualify unless the tendency/condition was present and hidden at the start.
3. The Rule of Exclusivity
The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently ruled that no other misrepresentation shall constitute fraud as a ground for annulment.
| Type of Lie | Ground for Annulment? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Lying about being a millionaire | No | Not included in Article 46 |
| Concealing a secret child from a past flame | No | Not included in Article 46 |
| Hiding a prior conviction for Estafa | Yes | Involves moral turpitude |
| Hiding a current drug addiction | Yes | Explicitly listed in Article 46 |
4. Requirement of Cohabitation and Prescription
The law provides a "safety valve" to prevent the abuse of this ground:
- Prescription Period: The action for annulment based on fraud must be filed within five years after the discovery of the fraud.
- Ratification: If, after discovering the fraud, the "injured" spouse continues to freely cohabit (live together as husband and wife) with the other, the fraud is considered "cleansed" or ratified. Once ratified, the right to file for annulment on that ground is lost.
5. Summary of Evidence
To successfully annul a marriage based on fraud and concealment, the petitioner must prove:
- The fact concealed is one of the four listed in Article 46.
- The fact existed at the time of the marriage.
- The petitioner was unaware of the fact.
- The petitioner did not continue living with the respondent after discovering the truth.