SC: Hiding homosexuality from spouse valid ground for annulment

By Gerome Dalipe IV

The Supreme Court has ruled that concealing one’s homosexuality from a prospective spouse constitutes fraud and may serve as legal grounds for annulment.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the SC Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband deliberately hid his sexual orientation before their wedding.

The Court emphasized that such concealment undermines genuine consent, which is essential for a valid marriage.

According to court records, the couple met through social media and maintained a long-distance relationship while the man worked in Saudi Arabia.

The woman said she noticed troubling signs during their first date—her partner avoided physical contact, declined to sit beside her, and gave vague explanations about being shy.

Following their wedding, the husband’s aloofness continued.

The couple briefly lived together, but he repeatedly avoided intimacy and started arguments to evade physical closeness.

Barely two months into the marriage, he returned overseas and ceased communication, except for a single message on their first anniversary.

Later, the woman found magazines featuring half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s belongings.

When she confronted him, he admitted to being homosexual.

She then left their home and sought refuge with her parents.

She later filed for annulment, claiming her consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud.

Her petition was supported by her and her father’s testimonies.

The husband did not appear in court or file any response.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling the evidence was self-serving and insufficient to conclusively prove the man’s homosexuality or deception.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings.

Citing Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, the Court stressed that a marriage may be annulled if consent was obtained through fraud—including the concealment of homosexuality—and if the spouses did not cohabit after the fraud was discovered.

The Court found the woman’s allegations credible and emphasized that the man’s admission, coupled with his failure to contest the claims, held significant weight.

The SC concluded the husband intentionally concealed his homosexuality to induce the woman into marriage, violating the essential element of informed consent.

“The totality of circumstances—including the respondent’s deliberate lack of intimacy and eventual confession—clearly showed deceit,” the SC ruled.

As the woman ceased living with her husband after learning the truth, the Supreme Court granted the annulment.