TL;DR — Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Accordingly, Lory was declared to have waived his right to present evidence. [17] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [18] dated July 10, 2019, the RTC denied the Petition for lack of merit. The RTC ruled that Jaaziel failed to establish Lory's homosexuality. Even Jaaziel's and Francisco's self-serving testimonies which were unsubstantiated by other evidence could not be considered as proof that Lory deliberately concealed his homosexuality to vitiate Jaaziel's consent for marriage. [19] Aggrieved, Jaaziel moved for reconsideration which was denied in an Order [20] dated June 11, 2020. Jaaziel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA Ruling In a Decision [21] dated January 24, 2023, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Similar to the RTC's findings, the CA held that Jaaziel failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that her consent was obtained through fraud and that Lory concealed his homosexuality. The CA further held that the testimonies of Jaaziel and Francisco were not convincing. [22] Undaunted, Jaaziel moved for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution [23] dated June 22, 2023. Hence, this Petition. In a Resolution [24] dated October 23, 2023, the Court resolved to implead the Republic and required Lory and the Republic to file their respective comments. In compliance, the Republic, through the Office of Solicitor General, filed its Comment and essentially argued that Jaaziel failed to prove that Lory concealed his homosexuality as to amount to fraud under Article 46 of the Family Code. [25] To date, no comment was filed by Lory. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC ruling in denying Jaaziel's Petition for Annulment of Marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code. The Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. 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. [26] To be valid, consent must be freely given by both parties. Thus, a marriage may be annulled when consent was obtained by fraud. To this end, pertinent provisions of Articles 45, 46, and 47 of the Family Code respectively read: 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 f