Short answer. Yes, but only if she was pregnant by another man at the time of the marriage itself and concealed this from her husband. If the child had already been born before the wedding, and only paternity was later discovered, the concealment does not qualify as fraud under this specific ground.
What the law says
Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband
Family Code, Article 46 — What Constitutes Fraud. Read the full provision →
What the law says
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.
Family Code, Article 46 — What Constitutes Fraud. Read the full provision →
Concealed pregnancy is fraud under Article 46
Article 46 of the Family Code lists the only circumstances the law treats as fraud serious enough to annul a marriage under the fraud ground in Article 45. One of those four circumstances is concealment by the wife that, at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. If that concealment is proven, the husband can pursue an annulment on the ground of fraud, since the law treats being deceived about the paternity of a pregnancy the wife was carrying into the marriage as something a husband would reasonably want to know before marrying.
The timing has to be exact: pregnant at the time of marriage
Read closely, the ground is narrow. It reaches concealment by the wife of the fact that, at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. Both halves matter. The pregnancy must exist on the wedding day, and it must have been concealed. A child born to the wife before the marriage — however painful the later discovery that the husband is not the biological father — falls outside this ground, because there was no pregnancy at the time of the marriage to conceal. Learning the truth afterwards does not move the date the statute fixes.
Why the law draws the line here
The Court described the fraud grounds in Article 46 as exclusive and restrictive — courts cannot expand the list to cover situations that feel similar but do not match the wording. Article 46 itself closes with a reminder that no other misrepresentation about character, health, rank, fortune, or chastity can support an annulment on the ground of fraud, no matter how deceived the husband feels. That means a husband who discovers, after the wedding, that a child born before the marriage is not biologically his may have grounds to contest that child's status, but it does not by itself give him a ground to annul the marriage.
What this means practically
If you're considering this ground, the key fact to establish is not merely that your spouse concealed a child's true parentage, but that she was already pregnant by another man on the date you were married. Evidence such as the child's birth certificate showing a birth date well before or after the wedding, medical records, or a DNA test can help show whether the pregnancy existed at the time of marriage. Given how narrowly the Supreme Court has read this ground, cases sitting near this line deserve a careful, fact-specific review before assuming the concealment qualifies.
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.
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Melvin T. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Liberty D. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →