SC frees woman from homosexual partner
Article 46 specifically identifies concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism as a form of fraud.
Daily TribuneArticle 46 specifically identifies concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism as a form of fraud.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that concealing one’s homosexuality from a spouse constitutes fraud and may be valid ground for an annulment of marriage.
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the SC Second Division ruling granted the petition for annulment of a woman whose husband hid his sexual orientation from her before their marriage.
According to court records, the couple met on social media and became involved a year later. The woman, however, noticed early signs of emotional and physical distance in the man.
On their first date, the man refused to hold her hand or kiss her. He avoided sitting beside her during meals or while commuting, explaining that he was simply shy and lacked confidence.
The two maintained a long-distance relationship while the man worked in Saudi Arabia. After their wedding, they lived together briefly, but he continued to avoid physical intimacy and often initiated arguments to avoid getting close.
Just two months after their wedding, he returned overseas and ceased regular communication, sending only one message on their first anniversary.
Later, the woman found magazines featuring nude male models among his belongings. When confronted, the man admitted that he was a homosexual. Distraught, she left their home and moved back in with her parents.
She subsequently filed a petition for annulment, arguing that her consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud and that she would not have married him had she known the truth.
Her case relied on her testimony and that of her father. The husband neither appeared in court nor submitted a response.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish that the man was homosexual or that he had deliberately misled her. The lower courts deemed the testimonies self-serving and uncorroborated.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings. It emphasized that for a marriage to be valid, both parties must freely and fully consent to it.
Under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be annulled if consent was obtained through fraud, provided the couple did not continue to live together after the discovery of the deception. Article 46 specifically identifies concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism as a form of fraud.
The SC noted that the husband’s eventual admission and unexplained silence during the proceedings could not be ignored. It found that his consistent emotional and physical detachment, coupled with the deception before and after the marriage, pointed to a deliberate effort to mislead his wife into marrying him.
“The totality of circumstances shows that the husband intentionally concealed his homosexuality to induce the woman to enter into marriage,” the Court ruled. “Her consent, therefore, was obtained through fraud.”
With this, the Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the marriage.
-30-
