Text of the provision
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(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;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
(85a)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full. The notation (85a) is the Code's own source note, indicating the provision derives from Article 85 of the Civil Code in amended form.
What this article means
Article 45 lists the six grounds on which a marriage may be annulled. This is the provision most people actually mean when they say "annulment" — and it is legally distinct from a declaration of nullity under Article 35 or Article 36.
The difference matters. A marriage annulled under Article 45 was valid until the court annulled it. A void marriage was never valid at all. That distinction affects the legitimacy of children, property relations, and what has to be proved.
Every ground must have existed at the time of the marriage. A problem that developed afterwards is not a ground under this article.
Ratification: how a ground is lost
This is the feature of Article 45 most often missed. Four of the six grounds — paragraphs (1) through (4) — carry an "unless" clause. If the aggrieved party freely cohabited with the other after the disability ended (on turning twenty-one, on coming to reason, on learning the facts constituting the fraud, or once the force or intimidation ceased), the ground is lost. The marriage is ratified and can no longer be annulled on that basis.
Paragraphs (5) and (6) — physical incapacity to consummate, and a serious and apparently incurable sexually-transmissible disease — contain no such clause and are not ratified by continued cohabitation.
The six grounds
- (1) No parental consent, aged 18 to 20 — lost if the party freely cohabits after turning twenty-one. Note the contrast with Article 35(1): under 18 is void, not merely voidable.
- (2) Unsound mind — lost if the party, after coming to reason, freely cohabits.
- (3) Fraud — lost on free cohabitation with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. What counts as fraud is defined restrictively by Article 46, not left at large.
- (4) Force, intimidation or undue influence — lost if the party freely cohabits once the force or intimidation has ceased.
- (5) Physical incapacity to consummate — must continue and appear incurable. Not ratifiable by cohabitation.
- (6) Serious and apparently incurable sexually-transmissible disease — not ratifiable by cohabitation.
Related provisions
- Article 35 — marriages void from the beginning.
- Article 36 — psychological incapacity, which produces a void marriage, not a voidable one.
- Article 46 — defines what constitutes fraud for paragraph (3).
- Article 47 — who may file, and the prescriptive periods for each ground.
Cases interpreting this article
- Anaya v. Palaroan, G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970 — the controlling principle on paragraph (3). Fraud as a vice of consent is limited exclusively to the kinds the law enumerates, so non-disclosure of a spouse's pre-marital relationship with another person is not a ground for annulment. Decided under Civil Code Article 86, whose enumeration is carried into Article 46; the exclusivity principle is what survives.
- Aquino v. Delizo, G.R. No. L-15853, July 27, 1960 — concealment by the wife that she was, at the time of the marriage, pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud. Decided under the Civil Code; the ground is carried into Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2).
- Both leading authorities on fraud predate the Family Code. This is not an oversight: Article 46 reproduces the Civil Code enumeration, so the older cases remain the operative authority. Additional Family Code-era entries will be added as they are verified against primary sources.