Hiding one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.
This is according to the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines, which annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband concealed his homosexuality before they got married.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division, the highest court decided that what the husband did was “
marriage must be annulled on the ground of “fraudulent concealment of
homosexuality pursuant to Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the Family
Code.”
Case under scrutiny
This decision stemmed from a Petition for Annulment of Marriage on the ground of concealment of homosexuality filed by Jaaziel M. Salva-Roldan (Jaaziel) against Lory O. Roldan (Lory).
Jaaziel and Lory met on social media in 2010, and that by 2011, they became “sweethearts”. On their first date in 2012, Jaaziel claimed that Lory was distant from her, and that “they neither kissed nor held hands”, and “Lory did not sit beside Jaaziel when they had lunch, and during their commute, Lory merely stood in front of the door of the train while Jaaziel was away from him” While this made her doubt his sincerity as a lover, they still got married on April 15, 2013 in Marinduque.
As a married couple, Jaaziel claimed she had to “initiate intimate activities”, and “Lory would make an excuse either to spend his time alone or for the two of them to talk about Lory’s work and plans, but not their married life and sexual intimacy. Had it not been for Jaaziel, their marriage would not have been consummated”.
In June 2015, Jaaziel found magazines of male models who were either half-naked or naked in Lory’s belongings. This prompted her to confront him, and he “admitted that he was homosexual”.
Supposedly realizing that “their marriage must end due to fraud, as she would not have agreed to marry Lory had she known about Lory’s homosexuality”, Jaaziel left their conjugal dwelling and, two years later, filed the Petition for Annulment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The SC, and gender roles and gender stereotypes
The court’s decision also mentioned supposedly corroborating statements – this time from Francisco Salva, Jaaziel’s father – on how Lory was identified as homosexual, including: Lory being somewhat effeminate or “medyo malambot“, and Lory not being romantic or “man enough” because he did not know how to woo a woman, Jaaziel and Lory not holding hands and embracing each other as normal newlywed couples do.
Long road to the decision
The RTC actually denied Jaaziel’s petition, saying in a July 10, 2019 decision that she failed to establish Lory’s homosexuality.
Jaaziel moved for reconsideration, but this was denied in a June 11, 2020 order.
Jaaziel then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC ruling in its January 24, 2023 decision. Her move for reconsideration was also denied in a resolution dated June 22, 2023.
Case reaches SC
The SC decision mentions pertinent provisions of Articles 45, 46, and 47 of the Family Code, respectively.
Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
…
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
…
Article 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
…
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
Article 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein:
…
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured party within five years after the discovery of the fraud[.]
The SC decided that “after a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court is convinced that, contrary to the rulings of the lower courts, Jaaziel was able to prove by the evidentiary threshold of preponderance of evidence the fact that Lory fraudulently concealed his homosexuality from her, thereby vitiating her consent to enter into a marriage with him.”
The SC also gave weight to the antiquated gender roles stated by Jaaziel’s father, claiming that these “circumstances encapsulate not only Lory’s homosexuality, more so, his concealment of such fact from Jaaziel.”
For the SC, “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. It must be emphasized that Jaaziel’s allegations must be proven by preponderance of evidence or the evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it.”
Associate justices Marvic Leonen, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez and Jhosep Lopez concurred with the decision.
For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 268109 (Salva-Roldan v. Roldan, March 3, 2025).
