Almerol vs RTC, G,R, No.
179620, Aug 26, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner Manuel and Respondent Leonilda were married on Jan. 29, 1989 at the
Manila Cathedral and bore 3 children. They are both medical practitioners, an
anesthesiologist and a pediatrician. After 11 years of marriage, Leonilda filed a
petition with RTC Las Pinas to annul the said marriage on the ground that Manuel
was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.
Leonida averred that Manuel's kind and gentle demeanor did not last long. In the
public eye, Manuel was the picture of a perfect husband and father. This was not the
case in his private life. At home, Leonida described Manuel as a harsh disciplinarian,
unreasonably meticulous, easily angered. Manuel's unreasonable way of imposing
discipline on their children was the cause of their frequent fights as a couple.
Leonida complained that this was in stark contrast to the alleged lavish affection
Manuel has for his mother. Manuel's deep attachment to his mother and his
dependence on her decision-making were incomprehensible to Leonida.
Further adding to her woes was his concealment to her of his homosexuality. Her
suspicions were first aroused when she noticed Manuel's peculiar closeness to his
male companions. For instance, she caught him in an indiscreet telephone
conversation manifesting his affection for a male caller. She also found several
pornographic homosexual materials in his possession. Her worse fears were
confirmed when she saw Manuel kissed another man on the lips. The man was a
certain Dr. Nogales.11 When she confronted Manuel, he denied everything. At this
point, Leonida took her children and left their conjugal abode. Since then, Manuel
stopped giving support to their children.
Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist, was presented to prove
Leonida's claim. Dr. del Fonso Garcia testified that she conducted evaluative
interviews and a battery of psychiatric tests on Leonida. She also had a one-time
interview with Manuel and face-to-face interviews with Ma. Paulina Corrinne (the
eldest child). She concluded that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated. Such
incapacity is marked by antecedence; it existed even before the marriage and
appeared to be incurable.
Manuel, for his part, admitted that he and Leonida had some petty arguments here
and there. He, however, maintained that their marital relationship was generally
harmonious. The petition for annulment filed by Leonida came as a surprise to him.
Manuel countered that the true cause of Leonida's hostility against him was their
professional rivalry.
Manuel belied her allegation that he was a cruel father to their children. He denied
maltreating them. At most, he only imposed the necessary discipline on the children.
ISSUE: WHETHER CA ERRED IN THE ORDER DECLARING THE MARRIAGE AS NULL
AND VOID ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
RULING: Yes.
Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se.
In this case, Manuel is a desperate man determined to salvage what remains of his
marriage. Persistent in his quest, he fought back all the heavy accusations of
incapacity, cruelty, and doubted masculinity thrown at him. But instead of
dismissing the petition, the trial court nullified the marriage between Manuel and
Leonida on the ground of vitiated consent by virtue of fraud.
Evidently, 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. The lower court considered the public perception of Manuel's sexual
preference without the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it took cognizance of
Manuel's peculiarities and interpreted it against his sexuality.
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that Manuel is a homosexual, the lower court
cannot appreciate it as a ground to annul his marriage with Leonida. The law is clear
- a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either party was obtained by
fraud such as concealment of homosexuality.
Nowhere in the said decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that
Manuel was a homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately
hid such fact to his wife. It is the concealment of homosexuality, and not
homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. Such
concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in
giving consent to the marriage.
Consent is an essential requisite of a valid marriage. To be valid, it must be freely
given 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
constituting fraud. Homosexuality per se is not among those cited, but its
concealment. To reiterate, homosexuality per se is only a ground for legal
separation. It is its concealment that serves as a valid ground to annul a
marriage. Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial, but one that
is constitutive of fraud. It is this fundamental element that respondent failed
to prove.
Verily, the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, not only by solely
taking into account petitioner's homosexuality per se and not its concealment, but
by declaring the marriage void from its existence.
