Facts
In 2010, while working in Saudi Arabia, Lory Roldan (Lory) sent a friend request to Jaaziel Salva-Roldan (Jaaziel) on social media, which she initially ignored despite Lory being a coworker of her friend. Over time, she learned of Lory’s kindness and, due to his persistence, gave him her number. They began constant communication and became a couple in 2011. Lory returned to the Philippines in 2012 and met Jaaziel in person. During their first date, Jaaziel observed Lory’s distant behavior, no kissing or holding hands, sitting apart during lunch, and standing away from her during their commute. When confronted, Lory attributed it to timidity and admitted that Jaaziel was his first girlfriend at age 31.
Lory soon returned to Saudi Arabia, and they maintained a long-distance relationship often marred by petty arguments. Despite these issues, they married on April 15, 2013, in Marinduque.
After the wedding, they moved into a new house in Imus, Cavite. Their honeymoon was unusual. Lory avoided intimacy, preferring to discuss work rather than their married life. Jaaziel had to initiate consummation, and even then, Lory often picked fights and slept in a separate room. During a serious argument, Jaaziel left for her parents’ home in Caloocan, expecting reconciliation, but Lory coldly replied, “Kung umalis ka, matuto kang bumalik.” Two months after the wedding, in June 2013, Lory returned to Saudi Arabia and ceased communication. Jaaziel’s efforts to reach out went unanswered.
For their first anniversary, Jaaziel received flowers and gifts and called Lory to thank him. Lory denied sending them, prompting Jaaziel to ask, “Kanino galing e may happy first anniversary dito wala naman ako ka-anniversary na ganitong date.” Lory admitted it was from him but claimed it was a joke. After, communication between them once again ceased.
In June 2015, Jaaziel discovered several magazines of half-naked or naked male models among Lory’s belongings. When confronted, Lory admitted he was homosexual. Devastated, Jaaziel realized she had been defrauded, as she would never have consented to marry Lory had she known. The discovery explained Lory’s prior behavior, prompting Jaaziel to leave their home permanently and return to her parents. On September 8, 2017, more than two years later, she filed a Petition for Annulment.
To corroborate her claim, Jaaziel’s father, Francisco Salva (Francisco), testified that Lory appeared effeminate or “medyo malambot.” He described Lory as “not romantic” or “man enough,” noting Lory’s refusal to fetch Jaaziel from their home during an argument and the lack of physical affection between the couple. Francisco further attested that in 2015, Jaaziel confided to him about Lory’s homosexuality and said she would not have married him had she known the truth.
The RTC denied the Petition for lack of merit, and ruled that Jaaziel failed to establish Lory’s homosexuality. Even Jaaziel’s and Francisco’s testimonies could not be considered as proof that Lory deliberately concealed his homosexuality to vitiate Jaaziel’s consent to the marriage. Aggrieved, Jaaziel filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Jaaziel then appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC ruling. She again moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in a Resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC ruling in denying Jaaziel’s Petition for Annulment of Marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code
Ruling
No, the CA did not correctly affirm the RTC ruling
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. 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:
xxx
(3) That the consent either party was obtained by fraud, unless such of party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
xxx”
“Article 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
xxx
(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:
xxx
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured party within five years after the discovery of the fraud.”
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.
First, Lory admitted to Jaaziel that he is homosexual. Jaaziel found magazines depicting half-naked or naked men in Lory’s belongings. Lory’s admission only shows that Lory waited for their marriage before confessing their homosexuality. In fact, had it not been due to the discovery of the magazines, Lory would have continuously defrauded Jaaziel until this day.
Second, Francisco’s observation as to the lack of intimacy and affection between Jaaziel and Lory bolsters Lory’s homosexuality. Likewise, Francisco described Lory as “medyo malambot.” Francisco even noticed that Lory did not know how to woo a woman and failed to see the passion and fondness as newlyweds. Furthermore, Francisco corroborates that Jaaziel confessed that had she known that Lory was homosexual, Jaaziel would not have married him. These circumstances encapsulate not only Lory’s homosexuality, more so, his concealment of such fact from Jaaziel.
Third, Jaaziel was led to believe that Lory is someone he is not at the onset of their relationship. Lory refused to talk about his behavior during their first date. Lory, who was then about 31 years old, pursued Jaziel until they became sweethearts. During their first date, Jaaziel noticed Lory’s behavior, which was unusual for a guy who met his girlfriend for the first time. As described by Jaaziel, she felt Lory’s distance and lack of intimacy towards her. This led Jaaziel to confront Lory, but Lory only confessed to his timidity and lack of confidence. Evidently, Lory deliberately concealed his homosexuality to convince Jaaziel to stay in the relationship and later to marry Lory.
Fourth, Lory refused or looked for an excuse to evade intimacy with Jaaziel. Jaaziel and Lory had an unusual honeymoon as Lory would prefer to spend his time alone or to talk about anything but their married life and sexual intimacy. Worse, just two months after their wedding, Lory went back to Saudi Arabia and stopped communicating with Jaaziel. It thus appears that Lory’s actions towards Jaaziel were done with the intent of keeping the latter in the dark about Lory’s sexuality.
Given the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the allegations of Jaaziel are not mere baseless perception or malicious interpretation of Lory’s peculiarities. With the lies and deception, coupled with their failure to cohabit as husband and wife, it is evident that Lory merely tricked Jaaziel into marrying him by making her believe that he is a heterosexual. The admission of Lory and the unexplained prolonged silence to negate the allegation as to his homosexuality cannot be taken lightly by the Court. 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. Therefore, the totality of Jaaziel’s evidence should be properly given weight and thus should be considered sufficient as against Lory’s eerie silence on this matter. Hence, their 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.