Fraud, A45(3), 46 Family Code
1. Concept
Fraud – means “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right”. (Merriam-Webster, n.d. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud [Accessed: 17 April 2025])
2. Fraud
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
x x x
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud x x x
Related provision:
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. (86a)
1) A marriage can be annulled if one of the spouses gave their consent to marry based on deceit or dishonest misrepresentation by the other party. This means that the decision to enter into the marriage was influenced by a lie or concealment of a crucial fact that, had it been known, would have affected the decision to marry. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J. Del Puerto. Available at: https://chat.openai.com [Accessed: 12 April 2025])
2) However, the type of fraud is limited to those enumerated in Article 46. This is emphasized in the last paragraph which state that “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.”
Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, 16 October 2013, Per Mendoz, J.:
• Although the Court views with disdain the respondent’s attempt to utilize marriage for dishonest purposes, [i]t cannot declare the marriage void. Hence, though the respondent’s marriage may be considered a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting.
• Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same Code may constitute fraud, namely, (1) non- disclosure of a previous conv1ctwn involving moral turpitude; (2) concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by another man; (3) concealment of a sexually transmitted disease; and (4) concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute fraud as a ground for an action to annul a marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of fraud may only be brought by the injured or innocent party. In the present case, there is no injured party because Albios and Fringer both conspired to enter into the sham marriage.
a. Non-disclosure of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude; x x x
Related: Crimes involving Moral Turpitude
b. Concealment by wife of pregnancy by another man
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
x x x
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband; x x x
2) As opined by CA Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, a member of the Civil Code Revision and Family Law Committee, “[a]lthough fraud to vitiate consent has been defined by the Civil Code as insidious words and machinations which lead a party to enter into a contract without which he would not have entered into, this general definition of fraud in the Civil Code is not absolutely applicable to marriage since the subsequent article of the Code (referring to Article 86 of the Civil Code) limits the kinds of fraud which will serve as grounds for annulment. Consequently, in order to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud, the fraud must consist of one of those enumerated in Article 86.” Article 86 of the Civil Code is the precursor of Article 46 of the Family Code. (Republic v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, 23 June 2021, Per Caguioa, J.)
Republic v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, 23 June 2021, Per Caguioa, J.:
[NB: The case applies Civil Code provisions on fraud; however, these discussions are precursor to the similar provisions on fraud in the Family Code.]
• In this regard, the OSG correctly argues that the concealed pregnancy, which vitiates consent, must have existed at the time of the marriage. Justice Eduardo Caguioa explains that “[t]he essence of the fraud in this case is the non-disclosure of the present pregnancy of the wife x x x the pregnancy must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, thus, if the wife had previous relations with other men and as a consequence of which she became pregnant or bore a child previously, the concealment thereof will not be a ground for annulling the marriage if at the time the marriage was celebrated the wife was not pregnant.” It is the concealment of the fact of pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage that constitutes fraud as a ground for annulment. “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.”
• In the instant case, the facts readily reveal that Mejan Dia was already almost three years old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. As Janufi was not pregnant at the time of the marriage, any purported fraud she may have committed to induce Melvin to marry her cannot be considered the fraudulent concealment contemplated under Article 46(2). Indeed, the Court has held that not all fraudulent acts can be invoked to annul a marriage. The circumstances of fraud under Article 45(3) are exclusive and restrictive. In Anaya v. Palaroan, the Court resolved the question of whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman was a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 of the Civil Code. Speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, the Court held that:
The intention of Congress to confine the circumstances that can constitute fraud as ground for annulment of marriage to the foregoing three cases may be deduced from the fact that, of all the causes of nullity enumerated in Article 85, fraud is the only one given special treatment in a subsequent article within the chapter on void and voidable marriages. If its intention were otherwise. Congress would have stopped at Article 85, for, anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein as a cause for annulment. But Article 86 was also enacted, expressly and specifically dealing with “fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article” and proceeds by enumerating the specific frauds (misrepresentation as to identity, nondisclosure of a previous conviction, and concealment of pregnancy), making it clear that Congress intended to exclude all other frauds or deceits. To stress further such intention, the enumeration of the specific frauds was followed by the interdiction: “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.”
• Non-disclosure of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of the article, providing that “no other misrepresentation or deceit as to [x x x] chastity” shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested. The lawmaker’s intent being plain, the Court’s duty is to give effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not.
• As Janufi’s purported fraud does not squarely fall under Article 46(2), the same cannot serve as a ground for annulment. It is of no moment that the RTC found that Melvin would probably not have married Janufi had he known that he was not the father of Mejan Dia. It is a threshold principle that “x x x when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation x x x.” Not falling within the restrictive grounds provided under Article 46, the wisdom of whether Janufi’s purported fraud should likewise be considered a ground for annulment is a policy question better left to the political branches of the government. “The lawmaker’s intent being plain, the Court’s duty is to give effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not.”
Aquino v. Delizo, En Banc, G.R. No. L-15853, 27 July 1960, Per Gutierrez David, J.:
• Under the new Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage. (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3). In the case of Buccat vs. Buccat (72 Phil., 19) cited in the decision sought to be reviewed, which was also an action for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud, plaintiff’s claim that he did not even suspect the pregnancy of the defendant was held to be unbelievable, it having been proven that the latter was already in an advanced stage of pregnancy (7th month) at the time of their marriage. That pronouncement, however, cannot apply to the case at bar. Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she was “naturally plump” or fat as alleged by plaintiff. According to medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement of a woman’s abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if noticed, be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman’s abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. (See Lull, Clinical Obstetrics, p. 122) If, as claimed by plaintiff, defendant is “naturally plump”, he could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Even physicians and surgeons, with the aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her subjective and objective symptoms, can only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in 33% at five months. and 50% at six months. (XI Cyclopedia of Medicine, Surgery, etc. Pregnancy, p. 10).
• The appellate court also said that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse before they got married and therefore the child could be their own. This statement, however, is purely conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record.
• Upon the other hand, the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial, taken together with what has already been adduced would, in our opinion, be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff.
c. Concealment of sexually-transmissible disease
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
x x x
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; x x x
A marriage may be set aside through annulment if it is found that, at the time of the wedding, one spouse intentionally hid the fact that they had a sexually transmissible disease. It does not matter what kind of disease it was—whether severe or mild—the mere deliberate concealment of such a condition is enough to affect the foundation of trust and transparency necessary for a valid marital union. The law views this form of deception as serious because it can endanger the health and well-being of the other spouse and denies them the opportunity to make an informed decision before entering into marriage. As a result, the misled spouse may have the legal ground to seek annulment upon discovery of the concealed illness. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J. Del Puerto, supra.)
d. Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
x x x
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. x x x
1) Drug addition
2) Habitual alcoholism
A marriage can be declared invalid through annulment if, at the time it was celebrated, one spouse deliberately hid [the following:] drug dependency, a pattern of excessive drinking, or a confirmed homosexual or lesbian orientation. The key element is the act of concealment—that is, intentionally keeping the other party unaware of a circumstance that could have influenced their decision to marry. The law recognizes that entering into marriage without full and honest disclosure of such significant personal matters undermines the mutual trust and informed consent required for a valid union. As such, if the injured spouse discovers this concealment after the wedding, they may seek annulment within a prescribed period. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J. Del Puerto, supra.)
3) Homosexuality or lesbianism
1) It is the concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. (Almelor v. RTC, G.R. No. 179620, 26 August 2009, Per Reyes, R.T. J.)
2) [H]omosexuality per se is only a ground for legal separation. It is its concealment that serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage. Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial, but one that is constitutive of fraud. (Almelor v. RTC [2009], supra.)
Almelor v. RTC, G.R. No. 179620, 26 August 2009, Per Reyes, R.T. J.:
• Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of their marriage. The lower court considered the public perception of Manuel’s sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it took cognizance of Manuel’s peculiarities and interpreted it against his sexuality.
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that Manuel is a homosexual, the lower court cannot appreciate it as a ground to annul his marriage with Leonida. The law is clear – a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, such as concealment of homosexuality. Nowhere in the said decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that Manuel was a homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact to his wife. It is the concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. Such concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage.
• Consent is an essential requisite of a valid marriage. To be valid, it must be freely given by both parties. An allegation of vitiated consent must be proven by preponderance of evidence. The Family Code has enumerated an exclusive list of circumstances constituting fraud. Homosexuality per se is not among those cited, but its concealment.
3. Ratification
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
x x x
(3) … unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; x x x
However, if the deceived spouse later discovers the truth and, despite knowing about the fraud, willingly chooses to continue living with the other as husband and wife, the right to annul the marriage is lost. In such cases, the law considers the continued cohabitation as a voluntary acceptance of the marriage despite the earlier deception. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J, supra.)
