ALMELOR V.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

G.R. NO. 179620; August 26, 2008

FACTS:

Manuel, petitioner and Leonida, respondent, both medical practitioners were married on
January 29, 1989 and begot three children. After 11 years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition to annul
their marriage before the Regional Trial Court on the ground that Manuel was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. The trial court ruled not on the alleged ground of
Article 36 of the Family Code, but on the basis of Article 45 ratiocinating that homosexuality on Manuel’s
part as claimed by Lilia is generally incompatible with hetero sexual marriage.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not homosexuality per se is a proper ground to annul said marriage.

HELD:

LOWER COURT:

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition for annulment and ordered the dissolution of the
regime of community property between the parties and the provision of monthly financial support to all
the children. The Court of Appeals affirmed above decision in toto.

SUPREME COURT:

No, said marriage may not be annulled on the basis of homosexuality per se.

The Court held that the trial court should have dismissed the petition for the declaration of
nullity of marriage as it was anchored on the ground of psychological incapacity as provided in Article
36. But because the supporting grounds relied upon by Leonidas cannot legally make a case on such
basis as would be qualified under the guidelines laid down in the Molina case, the trial court erroneously
sought support from the provisions of Article 45 citing that Manuel’s homosexual tendencies rendered
him incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations.

Evidently though, there was no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations
that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of their marriage.
Moreover, even in assuming that Manuel is a homosexual, this cannot be made a ground to annul his
marriage because it is the concealment of homosexuality and not homosexuality per se that renders
one’s consent to the marriage vitiated by fraud. Consent is an essential element requisite of a valid
marriage. To be valid, it must be given freely by both parties. An allegation of vitiated consent must be
proven by preponderance of evidence. The Family Code has enumerated an exclusive list of
circumstances consisting fraud and homosexuality per se is not among the cited, but its concealment. It
is instead only a ground for legal separation as it is alleged to be incompatible to a healthy heterosexual
life.
 Furthermore, mindful of the constitutional policy of protecting and strengthening family as basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family, the Court must resolve
doubt in favor of the validity of marriage.