31. Almelor vs.
RTC of Las Piñas against him was their professional rivalry because their own
G.R. 179620 | August 26, 2008 | TL
Topic: ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES (Arts. 45-
54)
Doctrine: 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.
Facts:
 Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent
Leonida Trinidad (Leonida), who were both medical
practitioners, were married on January 29, 1989 at the Manila
Cathedral. Their union bore 3 children.
 After 11 years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition with the
RTC in Las Pias City to annul their marriage on the ground that
Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations.
 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. Manuels
unreasonable way of imposing discipline on their children was
the cause of their frequent fights as a couple.
 Further adding to her woes was his concealment to her of his
homosexuality. He had pornographic homosexual materials
underneath his bed, and was even seen kissing another man by
the name of Dr. Nogales, however, Manuel denied this. 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, concluded that Manuel is
psychologically incapacitated, and such existed even before the
marriage and appeared to be incurable.
 Manuel countered that the true cause of Leonidas hostility
families have competing hospitals in the same vicinity.
 Manuel expressed his intention to refute Dr. del Fonso Garcias
findings by presenting his own expert witness. However, no
psychiatrist was presented.
 RTC: granted petition for annulment. Manuel appealed to the
CA: denied.
Issue: WON the CA erred in upholding the decision of the TC in
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of petitioners
psychological incapacity. – YES.
Held: TC 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.
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.
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.
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
The appealed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
petition in the trial court to annul the marriage is DISMISSED.