It takes two to tango: Whether or not the provision of Article 46 of the Family Code stating that no other misrepresentation or deceit shall be recognized as fraud and ground for annulment in connection with Article 46 (2) is unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause and the mandate to protect marriage and family life, both guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution

• Main Authors: De Claro, Kristine Mariz I., Rapal, Maria Fraulaine May L.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2012
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/17834
• Institution: De La Salle University

The study will be focusing on the grounds of fraud enumerated in Article 46 of the Family Code wherein whether or not the non-inclusion of the fraudulent concealment of the husband act of having a woman other than his wife pregnant at the time of marriage is violative of the Constitutional mandate on equal protection clause, and the state's duty to protect the inviolability of marriage and the family as a basic autonomous institution. In starting out, the researchers first identified the three core corollary issues relating to the subject matter and thereby using it as a guide in delving into different schools of thought. These schools of thought are discussed further through the gathering of both conceptual and theoretical data from different authors. An analysis was done to process the gathered information which then lead to a conclusion that the non-inclusion of the fraudulent concealment of the husband of having impregnated a woman other than his wife at the time of marriage is constitutional. The Constitutional mandate from Article III, Section 1 covers the equal protection which entails not that of similar treatment in a very specific detail, but rather it should involve uniformity of application of the principle of law in accordance with the individuals certain condition. The study focuses on whether there is such violation to the clause when the evils sought to be avoid are not directly related but are totally different. Moreover, the study likewise deals with the provision on Article XV Section 2 of the Constitution which recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and foundation of family that the state shall protect, the marriage union is created by the husband and wife and it is to be protected by the state because it is deemed to create a bond that would last a lifetime. Not having considered such fraud would not be harmful as the dangers posed by it would even promote more dysfunctional marriages as it would pave ways having more annullable grounds to be recognized. And to even note further, the grounds enumerated in Article 46 of the Family Code are innate and inherent whereas the fraudulent concealment of the husband is only inherent on the other woman which is then difficult to prove. The issue to be dealt with is on account of Article II Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution says that it is the duty of the state to protect and to strengthen the family as a basic autonomous institution. The family is the primary unit of society where all individuals arise from. The fraudulent act of the husband was committed prior to the marriage union of the husband and the wife. The husband however, did not intent to defraud the wife at the time he committed such act therefore his act must not determine the fate of both the marriage and the family. The family will be as strong as any other family as long as both the husband and wife commit to provide and create a happy home for their family. The existence of illegitimate children must no hinder any family from being harmonious.