Short answer. It's voidable, not automatically void. Article 1330 classifies a contract where consent was obtained through fraud as voidable, meaning it remains valid and binding unless and until you take action to have it annulled — it does not simply disappear on its own.
What the law says
A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable.
Civil Code, Article 1330 — Vices of Consent. Read the full provision →
Fraud makes a contract voidable, by the article's own words
Article 1330 states the classification directly: a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. Fraud is named specifically among the vices this article covers, and the article's own conclusion is unambiguous — the result of fraud in obtaining consent is a voidable contract, not one the law treats as automatically without effect.
What being voidable actually means for you
A voidable contract is treated as valid and binding from the start, and it stays that way, producing all its ordinary legal effects, unless and until it is set aside. This is different from a void contract, which never had legal effect in the first place and needs no action to be treated as a nullity. A voidable contract remains enforceable against you until you or the law successfully challenges it.
You generally have to act, not simply walk away
Because a voidable contract keeps its binding force until annulled, simply deciding on your own that fraud happened and treating the contract as gone is not enough — the contract will continue to be treated as valid unless it is actually annulled. This is also why a voidable contract can be ratified: if the party entitled to challenge it instead affirms it after learning of the fraud, the defect can be cured and the contract stands.
Fraud is one of several vices treated the same way
Article 1330 groups fraud together with mistake, violence, intimidation, and undue influence, and applies the identical consequence to all five: consent obtained through any of them results in a voidable, not void, contract. Whichever of these vices actually affected your consent, the legal category the contract falls into — and what you need to do about it — is the same under this article, and none of the five is treated by this provision as producing an automatically void contract.
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.
- Cebu Windland Development Corporation vs. Ong Siao Hua, G.R. No. 173215, May 21, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Domingo Realty, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126236, January 26, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Oil Company vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 109976, April 26, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Benjie B. Georg vs. Holy Trinity College, Inc, G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →