HIDING one’s homosexuality can be a ground for annulment.
This was the gist of a Supreme Court ruling dated March 3, 2025 but only made public yesterday where it annulled a marriage after the husband concealed his homosexuality from his wife before they got married.
Records of the case showed the two met on social media and became a couple a year later. But the woman said she noticed that even during their first date, he seemed distant and did not even hold her hand or kiss her. He also avoided sitting beside her during meals or while commuting.
The two kept a long-distance relationship as he is an overseas Filipino worker in Saudi Arabia.
After their wedding, they lived together briefly, but he continued to avoid intimacy and often started arguments to avoid getting close to her.
Later, the woman told the court she found magazines with half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s things after he returned home.
She said when she confronted her husband, he admitted he was a homosexual, leading her to leave their home and return to her parents.
She filed for annulment, which her husband did not oppose or contest. He also did not attend court hearings.
But the regional trial court and later the Court of Appeals rejected her petition, citing a lack of sufficient evidence of her husband’s homosexuality or that he deliberately concealed his homosexuality to persuade her to marry him.
The woman elevated the case to the SC, which eventually disagreed with the rulings of the trial and appellate courts.
In granting her appeal, the SC’s second division cited Article 45 of the Family Code, which states that a marriage can be annulled if one party’ consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud.
“Article 45 further specifies that hiding one’s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered a fraud,” the ruling penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. held.
The High Court said the husband’s admission that he is a homosexual and his unexplained silence when his sexuality was questioned could not be ignored.
“His lack of intimacy and emotional distance were attempts to hide the truth,” the SC added.
It further held that the woman’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud.
