ALMELOR VS.

RTC
GR No. 179620 | August 26, 2008

Petitioner: Manuel Almelor

Respondent: Leonida Trinidad Almelor
Facts:
1. Both parties got married on 1989, bore three children. Both are medical
practitioners. After 11 years, private respondent Leonida filed with RTC Las Pinas
to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.

2. Leonida testified that Manuel’s demeanor did not last long and that the latter
is actually a harsh disciplinarian and his policy towards his children are often
unconventional and unreasonable. Leonida further testified Manuel
concealed to her of his homosexuality (peculiar closeness, manifesting
affection via phonecall, pornographic materials in his possession, kissing another
man). Manuel denied everything and stopped giving support to their children.

3. A clinical psychologist conducted interviews and tests on Leonida, and a had a

one-time interview with Manuel and interviews with their eldest child, Ma.
Paulina. The psychologist concluded Manuel was PI, marked by antecedence and
appeared to be incurable.

4. Manuel admitted they argued with his wife and that the true cause of her
hostility was their professional rivalry (rival hospitals: Manuel’s very own and
Leonida’s family hospital). He denied maltreating the children and that Leonida
was overly jealous which is why Manuel avoided the company of female friends.

5. RTC, in its disposition, granted the petition for annulment, however, not on the
ground of Art 36 but rather due to fraud by reason of Manuel’s
concealment of his homosexuality (on Art 45 of the FC.) CA affirmed. In this
present case, Manuel argued that erred in its decision annulling the marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity.

Issue:

W/N the marriage between the two (Leonida and Manuel) can be
declared as null and void due to fraud by reason of Manuel’s
concealment of his homosexuality.

Ruling:

No. The SC emphasized that homosexuality per se is not a ground to nullify a

marriage. It is the concealment of homosexuality that would.

In the case at bar however, it is not proven that Manuel is a homosexual. The
lower court should not have taken the public’s perception against Manuel’s
sexuality. His peculiarities must not be ruled by the lower court as an indication
of his homosexuality for those are not conclusive and are not sufficient enough
to prove so. It was not proven that Manuel concealed his homosexuality
which would eventually lead to fraud.
Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual, there was nothing in the
complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hid
such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonida’s consent had been vitiated by
such.

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. 64 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.

CA ruling was reversed and the marriage between Manuel and Leonilda was
upheld valid and subsisting.