Short answer. Only when there's a duty to disclose. Article 1339 of the Civil Code makes failure to disclose facts fraud only when there is a duty to reveal them, giving confidential relations as one example of when that duty exists. Without any duty to speak up, bare silence about the defect does not, by itself, constitute fraud under this article.
What the law says
Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes fraud.
Civil Code, Article 1339 — Fraud by Concealment. Read the full provision →
The condition the article actually turns on
Article 1339 does not treat every failure to disclose as fraud — it is built around a specific condition. Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes fraud. Silence only rises to fraud when a duty to reveal the facts existed in the first place, not merely because the facts were material to the other party.
Why confidential relations is an example, not the only source of the duty
The article's phrase as when the parties are bound by confidential relations introduces confidential relations as an illustration of how a duty to disclose can arise, not as the sole way it can. That wording leaves room for a duty to disclose arising from other circumstances too, even without a confidential relationship of trust between the parties, since the article names a duty generally and offers confidential relations only as one instance of it.
What your lack of a special relationship means here
Since you had no confidential relationship with the buyer, that particular basis for a duty to disclose is not present. But Article 1339's rule is framed around the existence of a duty generally, so the real question is whether some other duty to reveal the defect applied to your situation — not whether a confidential relationship existed, which is only one example the article gives.
Why silence alone is not automatically fraud
Article 1339 makes the duty to reveal the operative condition, not silence by itself. If no duty to disclose the defect existed under the facts of your transaction, your silence does not automatically constitute fraud under this article, however material the defect might have been to the buyer's decision to purchase the property or item in question, and whatever the buyer might now argue about it.
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.
- Ciriaco Oberes, Cesario Oberes, and Gaudencio Oberes vs. Adriano Oberers, G.R. No. 211422, October 16, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 184666, June 27, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Angel V. Talampas, Jr. vs. Moldex Realty, Inc, G.R. No. 170134, June 17, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Ramon Lequin and Virgina Lequin vs. Sps. Raymundo Vizconde, et al, G.R. No. 177710, October 12, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →