The Supreme Court has nullified the marriage of a woman whose husband hid his homosexuality, emphasizing that concealing one’s sexual orientation from a spouse may constitute legal fraud and be a valid ground for annulment under Philippine law.
In an 8-page ruling made public in July, the Court’s Second Division said, “A marriage may be annulled when consent was obtained by fraud.” The decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., reinforces the legal definition of marriage as a permanent union requiring full honesty between partners.
The couple met through social media and began a long-distance relationship while the man was employed in Saudi Arabia. He returned to the Philippines in 2012, and they met in person for the first time. The woman noted unusual behavior—he avoided physical affection and chose not to sit beside her, explaining he was simply shy.
They married shortly after, but the court found that intimacy never developed. The man allegedly instigated arguments to avoid closeness and returned abroad two months into the marriage, eventually cutting off communication.
Three years later, the woman discovered magazines featuring nude male models among his belongings. When confronted, he admitted to being homosexual. She then moved back in with her parents and filed for annulment, claiming she had been deceived into marriage.
Her petition was initially denied by both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed the rulings, stating the woman had met the required evidentiary standard.
Citing Article 45 of the Family Code, the Court affirmed that a marriage can be annulled if a party’s consent was obtained through fraud and if the couple did not cohabit after the deception was discovered. It further clarified that concealment of homosexuality is expressly categorized as fraud under the same article.
“With the lies and deception, coupled by their failure to cohabit as husband and wife, it is evident that [the man] merely tricked [the woman] to marry him by making her believe that he is a heterosexual,” the decision stated.
The Court also pointed to the man’s silence during the proceedings as significant: “No woman would put herself in a shameful position if the fact that she married a homosexual was not true. More so, no man would keep silent when his sexuality is being questioned thus creating disgrace in his name.”
