Fraud as a Ground for Annulment

In the Philippines, annulment is a judicial process that dissolves a voidable marriage—one that is legally valid until annulled by a court due to defects existing at the time of its celebration.

Grounds for annulment are strictly set forth under Article 45 of the Family Code (E.O. 209) and include lack of parental consent, unsound mind or insanity, fraud, force or undue influence, physical incapacity, and sexually transmissible disease. 

What Is Fraud as a Ground for Annulment?

Fraud as a ground for annulment is provided under Article 45(3), which states that:

“Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.”

Based on this provision, we can deduce the following:

1. The fraud must have affected the spouse’s consent. 

Under the provision, fraud must have been such that it affected the spouse’s decision to enter into the marriage. The underlying principle is that the spouse gave marital consent based on a material deception and would not have consented had the truth been known. 

2. The fraud must have existed at the time of marriage. 

The fraudulent circumstance must have already existed when the marriage was celebrated because the law is concerned with whether the spouse’s consent was defective at the time. 

3. Free cohabitation after discovery may bar annulment. 

If the deceived spouse discovers the fraud, fully understands the facts constituting it, and nevertheless freely continues to live with the other as husband and wife, the law treats such conduct as a bar to annulment on that ground. 

The rationale is that the spouse, having acquired full knowledge of the deception, effectively chose to continue the marital relationship rather than reject it. Thus, the law prevents a spouse from relying on a fraud that was already known and subsequently accepted through voluntary marital cohabitation.

Continuous cohabitation acts as a statutory ratification or forgiveness (convalidación) of the defective consent, which extinguishes the right of action regardless of whether the five-year prescriptive period has lapsed. For cohabitation to bar annulment, it must be voluntary and informed; living together under duress or prior to discovering the deceit does not constitute free cohabitation.

What Qualifies as Fraud for Annulment?

Article 46 then determines the specific circumstances that constitute fraud:

“Article 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.”

1. Non-Disclosure of Criminal Conviction 

In order to qualify for a fraud under Article 46(1), the criminal conviction must be of final judgment and executory, must involve moral turpitude, and must have been concealed by the spouse at the time of marriage.  

Accordingly, the Supreme Court (SC) has consistently adopted the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary of “moral turpitude” as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals” (Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 121592, July 05, 1996). 

2. Concealment of Pregnancy by Another Man

Article 46(2) provides that fraud is also committed when a woman conceals the fact that she is pregnant, not by her husband but by another man, at the time of the celebration of marriage. 

Such deliberate deceit regarding biological paternity misleads the husband into believing that he is the father of the child expected during the marriage. Therefore, if the husband knows about the pregnancy, even if he is not the father, he cannot later claim fraud, as the essence of the ground is concealment.  

In Aquino v. Delizo, G.R. No. L-15853 (July 27, 1960), the Supreme Court held that concealing a pregnancy by another man constitutes statutory fraud that may warrant annulment under Article 85(4), in relation to Article 86(3), of the Civil Code. Since a four-month pregnancy may not yet be physically apparent, the Court allowed the husband to present newly discovered evidence supporting his claim. Although decided under the Civil Code, the ruling remains relevant to Article 45(3) of the Family Code.

While Aquino recognized concealed pregnancy as statutory fraud, the case of Buccat v. Buccat, G.R. No. 47101 (April 25, 1941) emphasizes that the alleged concealment must still be proven sufficiently to warrant the annulment of marriage. In this case, the Court held that, given the wife’s advanced pregnancy, it was unlikely that the petitioner could have been unaware of her condition at the time of the marriage.

3. Concealment of Sexually Transmissible Disease (STD)

Under Article 46(3), deliberate concealment of an existing sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, at the time of marriage that vitiates consent constitutes fraud, regardless of the nature or cure potential of the disease. However, under Article 45(6), the existence of a serious and incurable STD also serves as an independent ground for annulment regardless of whether it was concealed or not.         

In Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126010 (December 08, 1999), the Supreme Court (SC) clarified that a sexually transmissible disease acquired years after the marriage cannot constitute such fraud that would justify annulment because it could not have vitiated the spouse’s consent at the time the marriage was celebrated. 

4. Concealment of Drug Addiction, Habitual Alcoholism, Homosexuality, or Lesbianism  

Article 46(4) classifies the intentional concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, or lesbianism existing at the time of marriage as fraud that invalidates consent. Accordingly, this addresses pre-marital deception regarding personal addictions or sexual orientations that significantly affect marital intimacy and obligations.

In Almelor v. RTC of Las Piñas, G.R. No. 179620 (August 26, 2008), the Supreme Court clarified that homosexuality or lesbianism per se is not a ground to nullify or annul a marriage; rather, it is the deliberate concealment of its existence at the inception of marriage that constitutes fraud. 

In Salva-Roldan v. Roldan and Republic, G.R. No. 268109 (03-03-2025), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that concealment of homosexuality may constitute fraud that vitiates marital consent. The Court granted annulment after finding that the wife left the marriage upon discovering her husband’s deceit.

Prescriptive Period for Filing an Action for Annulment Under Fraud

Under Article 47(3) of the Family Code, an action for annulment based on fraud must be filed exclusively by the injured party within five (5) years after the discovery of the fraud.

The five-year period does not run from the date of the celebration of the marriage, but rather from the exact moment the innocent spouse discovers the true facts constituting the deceit. If the injured spouse fails to institute the petition within this five-year window, the right to seek annulment on that ground prescribes, rendering the marriage valid and unimpeachable under Article 46.

How to Prove Fraud in Annulment Cases

Within the prescribed period, the injured spouse must file the action for annulment and prove the fraud specifically recognized by law. The fraud must be material to the marital consent, meaning that the concealment or non-disclosure was such that it induced the injured spouse to agree to the marriage.

The burden of proof rests on the injured spouse, who must establish by preponderance of evidence what was concealed or misrepresented, that it existed at the time of the marriage, that it was deliberately concealed or misrepresented, and that it materially affected the decision to marry. 

Depending on the circumstances, this may be proven through documents, legally obtainable medical or treatment records, communications, photographs, testimony from persons with personal knowledge, admissions of the other spouse, or other competent evidence.

For instance, in Salva-Roldan v. Roldan and Republic, G.R. No. 268109 (March 3, 2025), the Supreme Court considered the husband’s eventual admission of homosexuality, the discovery of sexually suggestive magazines, and testimony regarding his lack of romantic and sexual interest toward his wife. His evasiveness before the marriage and continued avoidance of intimacy afterward supported the finding that he deliberately concealed his homosexuality and that the concealment vitiated his wife’s consent to the marriage.

Importantly, fraud cannot be presumed merely because a spouse later exhibits a particular behavior or condition. Where the alleged fraud involves the concealment of drug addiction or habitual alcoholism, for example, the evidence must establish that the condition already existed at the time of the marriage and was deliberately concealed from the other spouse.

Finally, the injured spouse’s conduct after discovering the fraud may also affect the action. The spouse must comply with the legal requirements concerning the five-year filing period and subsequent cohabitation, as continued voluntary cohabitation after discovering the fraud may bar the annulment action.

Duran & Duran-Schulze Law (“DDS Law”) is a family law firm in Metro Manila, Philippines, specializing in annulments, declarations of nullity of marriage, legal separation, and recognition of foreign divorces. For legal consultations and inquiries, call us at (02) 8478-5826 (landline) or +639171940482 (mobile), or email info@duranschulze.com.