Same-sex marriage is not valid within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, even if such marriage was

solemnized abroad and valid therein. As a matter of fact, same-sex marriage is not even considered as a
form of marriage in the Philippines due to Article 1 of the Family Code which states that:

“Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a

woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except
that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the
limits provided by this Code.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Thus, marriage is special contract of permanent union exclusively limited by the law between a
man and a woman. Hence, even if same-sex marriage is solemnized abroad and valid therein, the validity
of which cannot be extended within the Philippine jurisdiction as it would be contrary to public policy.

ZUZU CANNOT MAKE DECISIONS AS TO JOHN’S MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES

The marriage between Joe and John, not being recognized as valid, it follows that John and Joe’s
adoption of Zuzu cannot also be given any effect. Since the adoption of Zuzu was made by John and Joe
in their capacity as married couple in the United States, it follows also that such adoption is without force
and legal effect in the Philippines. To recognize the adoption of Zuzu by John and Joe as valid (in their
capacity as married couples in USA) is to indirectly recognize the validity if their marriage which cannot
be done. It is fundamental principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be also be done indirectly.
Zuzu, cannot therefor be considered as an adopted child of John. Without such status, Zuzu does not
possess any filial relationship with John nor can he act as a guardian. In other words, Zuzu is a stranger to
John within Philippine waters.

JOE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEFENSE PROVIDED UNDER ART. 247 OF THE RPC

The benefit provided under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be extended to Joe. The
provision provides:

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. -

Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt
from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the
daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not
be entitled to the benefits of this article. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
 Article 247 is very clear. The benefit therein is available only to a legally married person. Joe
cannot therefore utilize the provision as he is not considered married to John.