ALMELOR V. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY G.R. No.

179620 Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court August 26, 2008 http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/ jurisprudence/2008/august2008/179620.htm A wife sought annulment on the grounds that her husband was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations because he was a homosexual. The trial court nullified the marriage. The supreme court said there it had not been proven that the husband was a homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact from his wife. The court said the State and the public have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of these social institutions against desecration by fabricated interest so any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage and the order of annulment was reversed.
Manuel married Leonida in 1989. They are both medical practitioners. They begot 3 children. 11 years later, Leonida sought to annul her marriage with Manuel claiming that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Leonida testified that Manuel is a harsh disciplinarian and that his policy towards their children are often unconventional and was the cause of their frequent fight. Manuel has an unreasonable way of imposing discipline towards their children but is remarkably so gentle towards his mom. He is more affectionate towards his mom and this is a factor which is unreasonable for Leonida. Further, Leonida also testified that Manuel is a homosexual as evidenced by his unusual closeness to his male companions and that he concealed his homosexuality from Leonida prior to their marriage. She once caught Manuel talking to a man affectionately over the phone and she confirmed

all her fear when she saw Manuel kiss a man. The RTC ruled that their marriage is null and void not because of PI but rather due to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality (Art 45 of the F C). The CA affirmed the RTCs decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void due to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment o f his homosexuality. HELD: The SC emphasized that homosexuality per se is not a ground to nullify a marriage. It is the concealment of homosexuality that would. In the case at bar however, it is not proven that Manuel is a homosexual. The lower court should not have taken the publics perception against Manuels sexuality. His peculiarities must not be ruled by the lower court as an indication of his homosexuality for those are not conclusive and are not sufficient enough to prove so. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual, there was nothing in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonidas consent had been vitiated by such.

Article 45 - Family Code Manuel married Leonida in 1989. They are both medical practitioners. They begot 3 children. 11 years later, Leonida sought to annul her marriage with Manuel claiming that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Leonida testified that Manuel is a harsh disciplinarian and that his policy towards their children are often unconventional and was the cause of their frequent fight. Manuel has an unreasonable way of imposing discipline towards their children but is remarkably so gentle towards his mom. He is more affectionate towards his mom and this is a factor which is unreasonable for Leonida. Further, Leonida also testified that Manuel is a homosexual as evidenced by his unusual closeness to his male companions and that he concealed his homosexuality from Leonida prior to their marriage. She once caught Manuel talking to a man affectionately over the phone and she confirmed all her fear when she saw Manuel kiss a man. The RTC ruled that their marriage is null and void not because of PI but rather due to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality (Art 45 of the FC). The CA affirmed the RTCs decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void due to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality. HELD: The SC emphasized that homosexuality per se is not a ground to nullify a marriage. It is the concealment of homosexuality that would. In the case at bar however, it is not proven that Manuel is a homosexual. The lower court should not have taken the publics perception against Manuels sexuality. His peculiarities must not be ruled by the lower court as an indication of his homosexuality for those are not conclusive and are not sufficient enough to prove so. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual, there was

nothing in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonidas consent had been vitiated by such.