SC: Being gay not ground for annulment

By Jerome Aning
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:57:00 08/31/2008
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Laws

MANILA, Philippines

Being gay is not valid ground for having ones

marriage annulled, hiding the fact is.
The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Las Pias City Regional Trial
Court that broke up a couples 11-year marriage after the wife claimed her husband
was a homosexual.
In a 21-page ruling dated Aug. 28, the high courts 3rd Division said the lower court,
by declaring the marriage void from the start, erred when it solely took into account
the husbands homosexuality per se and not its concealment from his spouse.
In restoring the marriage of the couple (whose identities are being withheld by the
Inquirer because minor children are involved), the Supreme Court said the RTC

Article 46 of the Family Code of the Philippines

which allows annulment when the consent of either party
to the marriage was obtained by fraud, such as
concealment of homosexuality.
misinterpreted

preponderance of the
evidence that [the husband] was homosexual at the onset of
Nowhere in the [RTCs] decision was it proven by a

he deliberately hid such fact from his wife. It

is concealment that vitiates the consent of
the innocent party [and] presupposes bad
faith and intent to defraud the other party ,
his marriage and that

the tribunal said in the decision written by Justice Ruben Reyes.

Court records showed the wife sued for annulment, accusing her husband of being
psychologically unfit to perform his marital obligations. The couple, both medical
practitioners, went steady for three years before getting married in 1989.
During the trial, the wife described her husband as a harsh disciplinarian,
unreasonably meticulous and easy to anger, saying his cruelty to their children was
a cause of their fights. She said he showered lavish affection on his mother and was
dependent on her for decision-making.
She said she was also suspicions of his peculiar closeness to male friends, having
caught him expressing affection for a male caller, found pornographic homosexual
materials in his possession and seen him kiss another man on the lips.
She said that when she confronted him, he denied everything. She said she decided
to leave their conjugal home and take their children with her. He then stopped
giving support to their children, she said.
The husband, for his part, denied all his wifes allegations, saying their marriage
was generally harmonious so he was surprised by the suit.
He said he never maltreated their children and was close to his mother because she
was growing old and there was nothing wrong with returning the love and affection
of the one who had reared him.
He said his wifes jealousy drove him to avoid female friends, which she used to
conjure up stories about his sexual preference.
He also denied kissing another man and owning pornographic homosexual material.
He said the true cause of his wifes hostility was his decision to convert his lying-in
clinic into a hospital which competed with the one owned by his wifes family.
The RTC judge, siding with the wife, declared the marriage annulled in 2005. The
husbands share of the conjugal property was forfeited in favor of the children, for
whom he was also ordered to give monthly financial support.

RTC judge
had erroneously considered the public perception of the
husbands sexual preference without the corroboration of
witnesses.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the ruling, saying the

Also, the judge had taken cognizance of the husbands peculiarities and interpreted
them against his sexuality.

homosexual
tendencies by citing overt acts generally predominant
among homosexual individuals. She wanted to prove the perceived
What [the wife] attempted to demonstrate were [her husbands]

homosexuality rendered [him] incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations,

the high court said.