SC: Hiding homosexuality from spouse is fraud, grounds for annulment

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that concealing one’s homosexuality from a spouse constitutes fraud and may be used as grounds for annulment.

In a decision dated 3 March 2025 and penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the SC’s Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband hid his homosexuality prior to their wedding.

Records show that the couple met on social media and became a couple a year later. During their first date, the woman noted that the man was distant — he didn’t kiss or hold her hand. He avoided sitting beside her during meals or public transport. When asked, he claimed to be shy and lacking in confidence.

Their long-distance relationship continued while the man worked in Saudi Arabia. After the wedding, they briefly lived together, but he remained cold and argumentative, avoiding intimacy.

Two months after the wedding, the man returned abroad and ceased regular communication, only sending a single message on their first wedding anniversary. Later, the woman discovered magazines containing half-naked and nude male models among his belongings. When she confronted him, he admitted to being homosexual. Devastated, she returned to her parents and filed for annulment.

She claimed her consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud and that she would not have married him had she known the truth. Her case was supported solely by her and her father’s testimonies. The husband did not appear in court or submit any response.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition, citing a lack of sufficient evidence and labeling the testimonies as self-serving and uncorroborated.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be annulled if consent was obtained through fraud. Article 46 explicitly includes concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism as a form of fraud.

The SC found the woman’s account credible, highlighting the husband’s admission and silence as “deafening” when questioned about his sexuality. The Court ruled that he intentionally deceived her into marriage while avoiding intimacy and emotional connection to hide his true identity.

Citing the deception and failure to live as husband and wife, the SC granted the annulment on the grounds that the woman’s consent was obtained through fraud.