Short answer. Yes. Article 166 of the Family Code lists as one of only three grounds to impugn a child's legitimacy that, for a child conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. Being tricked or pressured into consenting fits that ground.

What the law says

Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds

Family Code, Article 166 — Grounds to Impugn Legitimacy. Read the full provision →

What the law says

That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.

Family Code, Article 166 — Grounds to Impugn Legitimacy. Read the full provision →

What the law says

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child.

Family Code, Article 164 — Who Is a Legitimate Child. Read the full provision →

Vitiated consent is one of the article's own listed grounds

Article 166 does not leave the grounds to impugn legitimacy open-ended: legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds. Among the grounds it lists is exactly your situation: that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. If your consent was obtained through trickery or pressure, that falls within this ground as the article defines it.

Why written authorization matters in the first place

This ground exists because written authorization is what makes a child conceived through artificial insemination legitimate in the first place. Article 164 provides that such children are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. Because legitimacy rests on that authorization, a defect in how it was obtained is treated as a ground to impugn it.

What counts as a vitiated authorization under this ground

Article 166 names five specific defects that can taint the authorization: mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. Being tricked into consenting fits within fraud or mistake, depending on how it happened, and being pressured fits within violence, intimidation, or undue influence. The article does not require a particular one of these; any of the five, if it actually affected either parent's authorization or ratification, brings the ground into play.

This ground is part of a narrow, exclusive list

Because Article 166 says legitimacy may be impugned only on the grounds it lists, this vitiated-consent ground for artificial insemination cases is not one option among many loosely related arguments. It is one of a small, closed set of grounds the article recognizes, which is also why it matters that your consent problem fits squarely within the specific wording the article uses.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.